Off Topic Poker Forums

lol You proved my point. You make these dismissing statements, and then cannot back them up.

The example you gave, was pharmaceuticals. But you sidestepped how competition is better for the consumer. You focused on ethical problems (maybe criminal). We have a huge FDA and Civil Court system to curb that. BTW purist Libertarians think the FDA is not needed. That is not my stance, but I do understand their argument.

Competition is always good for the customer. Remove competition and allow monopolies (govt or otherwise), and the consumer will pay a higher price. Allow competition, and the consumer sees price and quality improve.

Taking it back to the beginning, healthcare has not had a free-market for a long time. Regulations have isolated (segregated) the markets -- creating regional/local monopolies. The US is 50 states. The EU has tried to create a similar situation as the US. -- creating a bigger market of cooperative countries.

Open up the state borders for health and insurance markets, Interesting that there were 2000+ pages in the bill (that no one read), and nothing was done to help the private-sector in regards to this issue. Completely ignored, because the plan was not to fix the healthcare system issues -- but to make everyone dependent on a government system. Every government system I have seen is bad -- because they have a monopoly and do not try to run lean and efficiently -- no competition while using other people's money.

Why do you think that there will not be any competition if the govt. runs the health care system?

Do you think doctors just stop trying to do their best?
How big a role do you think health plays in politics?
Do you think people care that the country they live in provides good health care?

I think the fundamental problem is that you don't understand who customers of a hospital are? It is not the individual person. It is society in general and the companies who sell medicin through the hospitals.

Random fact from 2009-2010 the expenses to health care in Denmark dropped 0.4 BNP.

Let me know when you expect the health care expenses in the US to drop more than 60% and at the same time become better than they are today.

When we are talking about health care it is paramount that there are no financial links between the patient, the hospital and the companies selling the medicine. Only then can we expect the doctors to be as unbiased as possible. Without unbiased treatment there cannot be any competition.

if we take this statement to its extreme, then it follows that anything life-sustaining demands that no financial links exist between any parties involved. so since food is also essential for life, this axiom demands that all food producers and distributors have no financial links with those who eat the food, and we can see how absurd this is (or i do anyway). and in this new world, what will we do when the poor start complaining of eating cheap, unhealthy government foodstuffs everyday and demand foie gras once in awhile?

if we take this statement to its extreme, then it follows that anything life-sustaining demands that no financial links exist between any parties involved. so since food is also essential for life, this axiom demands that all food producers and distributors have no financial links with those who eat the food, and we can see how absurd this is (or i do anyway). and in this new world, what will we do when the poor start complaining of eating cheap, unhealthy government foodstuffs everyday and demand foie gras once in awhile?

If you think a little about it you will see big differences between the two industries.

2. Putting a price on your own health doesn't fit so well with people. Should people with wealth deserve to live more than people without wealth? Were wealth more directly correlated with merit I could possibly see an argument for this, however distasteful it was, but as we still clearly have a societal situation where people are not necessarily wealthy according to their merit it seems unconscionable to have hard working people miss out on basic healthcare because of their financial standing.

well then let's take this sentiment to its extreme and ask "why should anybody be richer than anybody else?" it'll solve the problem at its root. yes, there are inequalities in life. some are born smarter, some with more athletic skills, some are even prettier than others.

Professor Friedman, rescue me!!!
Free to Choose Part 5: Created Equal

3. People inherently have less choices with healthcare than they do in other areas. If you get extremely sick you don't have the luxury of shopping around for the best healthcare, you just take whatever you can get. The nature of many procedures in healthcare doesn't provide for competition in the same way seen in other areas.

it should work the same as car insurance. competition between different providers, not competition during a crisis. people would have to decide after the fact if the plan was worthwhile and switch providers as needed.

Inflation is going to go up regardless as long as the federal reserve is indiscriminately printing money.

I still fail to see how we're doing fine when the household income is the same as it was 20 years ago, whereas your purchasing power is 56% lower then the same year.

While I do agree with Friedman (in your video from the 70s) that those people are reinvesting their money. Reinvesting your money into an equity firm does not stimulate production. Again 68% of Americans are working office jobs, there's not a whole hell of a lot of production going on in this country.

You commented how increased wages lead to inflation, but completely ignored that in order for the economy to recover you need to have strong consumer spending.

I did read your Hazlitt chapter, and I do tend to favor to Austrian economics.
He's not referring to wage stagnation and inflation, he's countering an argument for communism.

[...]
Our current situation however can inevitably cause capitalism to fail. The current income gap is what it was before the great depression, and one of the largest in history. The debt crisis is predicated by people's stagnant wages. People are having to use credit to purchase things to have a decent standard of living.

Debt and savings are inversely proportional. On average U.S. savings are at a historical lowpoint (virtually nonexistant for most).

When money flows upwards, but doesn't come back down, it's very difficult to maintain an economy as a whole.

a lot of these points are just complaints about modern American society and nothing to with failure of capitalism. Capitalism isn't causing inflation, government is causing inflation. Capitalism isn't telling people not to save, it's our consumer culture that's doing it. Capitalism didn't tell people to get into credit card debt, we did that on our own.

also, we live in the height of technological luxury. 20 years ago, we spent a lot more money for what we get now (cell phones, TV's, safer cars). we get far more for our money today and i'm just not buying that we're somehow "poorer" than 20 years ago. Capitalism is responsible for this. the technological innovations from competition caused this.

consumer spending doesn't increase an economy. production increases an economy. doing things, creating new business (doesn't have to be manufacturing, we're a service society now), that's what improves an economy. a bunch of people just wanting things and spending money on things they can't afford with money they don't have produces nothing. if people can't afford to buy things now, they shouldn't be buying things. we have to get back to reality. it's really that simple i think. we can't have a boom economy forever.

Average US household income is about the same as it was 20 years ago, but it's a hellovalot more expensive to live now a days.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0690.pdf

agree with the first point, but these figures are already adjusted for inflation. is the assumption that we should be getting richer as a people ad infinitum? so a million years from now, a person making 15k a year should theoretically be a millionaire? it doesn't follow. but considering technological innovations, it can be argued that even a poor person today in America lives better than a king a thousand years ago.

and i have to disagree with the last point. how a person lives is entirely dependent on her expectations of necessities. 20 years ago we didn't consider cell phones and 300 channel satellite HDTV as necessities. people are spoiled today. i have a pre-paid cell phone that costs me < $10 a month, don't watch TV, and pay $50/mo for internet. i don't have a lot of luxuries, but i don't feel that my life is lacking for anything. and i'm pretty sure my life is more convenient than it was 20 years ago (assuming time travel whatever).

and again, the CEO pay is really not bothering me. you might as well be complaining about movie stars and athletes who make too much money nowadays. it's really not a cause of any problems imo and merely a distraction.

If you think a little about it you will see big differences between the two industries.

of course there are huge differences, but for the purpose of giving healthcare special status to be free from monetary bias, i think "life-sustaining" is the needed criteria and the commonality that makes my argument valid.

if that's not the criteria you're using, then i don't know. you have a tendency to present conclusions as if they're self-evident mathematical equations, but these things are not self-evident (or not to me anyway). may i please buy a vowel?

of course there are huge differences, but for the purpose of giving healthcare special status to be free from monetary bias, i think "life-sustaining" is the needed criteria and the commonality that makes my argument valid.

if that's not the criteria you're using, then i don't know. you have a tendency to present conclusions as if they're self-evident mathematical equations, but these things are not self-evident (or not to me anyway). may i please buy a vowel?

Food in very poor regions of the world can be compared to health care. But the competition and resource profiles are more frequently than not completely different

You can compare over the counter drugs with food. As soon as you need to consult an expert in order to figure out what to buy we have a very different type of product.

In a sense you can say that health care has not evolved to a state where it makes sense to privatize it.

well then let's take this sentiment to its extreme and ask "why should anybody be richer than anybody else?" it'll solve the problem at its root. yes, there are inequalities in life. some are born smarter, some with more athletic skills, some are even prettier than others.

Nice strawman.

People should have wealth based on their merit and yes that leads to inequalities, but I actually said that myself. But just because inequalities exist is not a solid argument for creating more inequalities.

It's most definitely dubious to take every argument to the extreme and then base your position on that, hopefully you can see why.

of course there are huge differences, but for the purpose of giving healthcare special status to be free from monetary bias, i think "life-sustaining" is the needed criteria and the commonality that makes my argument valid.

So because they have "life sustaining" in common you want to treat them the same despite recognizing that they have huge differences?

.....
if that's not the criteria you're using, then i don't know. you have a tendency to present conclusions as if they're self-evident mathematical equations, but these things are not self-evident (or not to me anyway).......

+1 a lot of one-liners appearing to be fact. And every single argument is Pro-Government (inpast also).

This is the exact reason I am holding Razor accountable for his statements. Smart guy, but refuses to acknowledge even the most basic principles. AssJiggler spent a lot of time with him on these subjects (solid arguments), but Razor still kept coming back with silly arguments (I can use a cannon to shoot garbage on your property. What can you do about it? lol).
.........If someone is a huge supporter of government, that is is okay. But at least, be honest and look for common ground -- before crying wolf (or cowering) behind ethics and criminal factors. Government is not the saviour for everything. Government is usually the problem.


BTW, Denmark has a population of 6million (about the same as Mass.). Should we use that model for 300+ million? Apparently, in part, that is what Obama, Reed, and Pelosi did with the Obamacare legislation.....that no one read before signing.
.......Regardless, I will read up on Denmark's health system and its pros and cons.
Sidenote.....Historically, it has always intrigued me that Denmark is so small, but survived many centuries (through wars), and remained independent. Something very special about that. I am going to read up on that too.

+1 a lot of one-liners appearing to be fact. And every single argument is Pro-Government (inpast also).

This is the exact reason I am holding Razor accountable for his statements. Smart guy, but refuses to acknowledge even the most basic principles. AssJiggler spent a lot of time with him on these subjects (solid arguments), but Razor still kept coming back with silly arguments (I can use a cannon to shoot garbage on your property. What can you do about it? lol).
.........If someone is a huge supporter of government, that is is okay. But at least, be honest and look for common ground -- before crying wolf (or cowering) behind ethics and criminal factors. Government is not the saviour for everything. Government is usually the problem.


BTW, Denmark has a population of 6million (about the same as Mass.). Should we use that model for 300+ million? Apparently, in part, that is what Obama, Reed, and Pelosi did with the Obamacare legislation.....that no one read before signing.
.......Regardless, I will read up on Denmark's health system and its pros and cons.
Sidenote.....Historically, it has always intrigued me that Denmark is so small, but survived many centuries (through wars), and remained independent. Something very special about that. I am going to read up on that too.

Short posts because it is pointless to have a debate if people cannot figure it out by themselves or at least are willing to give the subject some serious thought.

Similar models work in larger countries. Size should actually be an advantage.

Government is not the problem. Lack of fair competition is. If one cannot create fair competition then it is better that the government has full control or regulates the market. If you need examples in order to make this gigant leap of faith look at roaming prices and US health care compared to the rest of the world.

It is well documented and TBH not surprising that a free market (which is different than a fair market) lowers the social mobility. In other words it becomes less likely that a person will be judged by his merits - which I think is the opposite of what free market supporters hope for.

Short posts because it is pointless to have a debate if people cannot figure it out by themselves or at least are willing to give the subject some serious thought.

I think several people have given some thought about this seriously. It is one of the biggest issues this year in the US. The fact that others disagree with you does not make them less thoughtful than you......nor does it make your statements fact. Take this following statement you made. Not a serious statement in my opinion.
"In a sense you can say that health care has not evolved to a state where it makes sense to privatize it."

Government is not the problem. Lack of fair competition is. If one cannot create fair competition then it is better that the government has full control or regulates the market. If you need examples in order to make this gigant leap of faith look at roaming prices and US health care compared to the rest of the world.....

Ahhhhh.....that famous word that begs for more government regulations and interference. This is the foundation of liberal economics. "We must make things fair?" Which dictator decides what is "fair"?

The word "FAIR" is completely subjective and it is the reason there is so much argument about economic facts (creating fallacies). Poeple who only care about FAIRNESS, never seem to care about reality. They want "Reality to take a vacation".

"FAIR" is whatever you decide it is -- or the next dictator etc.
Is it FAIR that, some guy wrecks his health recklessly, and then makes me pay? (other side of coin)
Is it FAIR that poor couples have 7 kids, and then make me pay?
Is it FAIR that the EU is in financial straits because some participating countries gamed the system.

Yes, this is one of the major gaps between the two sides: Razor is always talking about FAIRNESS .... and he seems willing to throw the baby out with the bath water.


I agree that there should always be "FAIR" markets or "FAIR" competition -- meaning that there be competition -- not pandering or paying off the weakest links/losers. The Government should not be picking winners and losers in any market.

Again, the Government has not allowed real competition. They have segmented and regulated the market so badly...... and now they want to be the saviours.
Here are a couple of other words, "DEBT" and "ACCOUNTABILITY". Something Government is very bad at . Is this in the equation at all?


Until there is true competition in the US, and an understanding of what "competition" really is, then the debate will go no where. I will always find it amazing that there are people who think the Government is the only answer. Never fix the problems.....just dogpile it with mountains of legislation and regulations -- without accountability for their mistakes (we give them fat pensions).

a lot of these points are just complaints about modern American society and nothing to with failure of capitalism. Capitalism isn't causing inflation, government is causing inflation. Capitalism isn't telling people not to save, it's our consumer culture that's doing it. Capitalism didn't tell people to get into credit card debt, we did that on our own.

I never argued capitalism was causing inflation.
I'm not even arguing that capitalism is failing. What I am saying is that the current model we're using now is unsustainable, and will cause capitalism to fail. When a few people have money, and everyone else is dirt poor capitalism can't function, that's called feudalism.

also, we live in the height of technological luxury. 20 years ago, we spent a lot more money for what we get now (cell phones, TV's, safer cars). we get far more for our money today and i'm just not buying that we're somehow "poorer" than 20 years ago. Capitalism is responsible for this. the technological innovations from competition caused this.

consumer spending doesn't increase an economy. production increases an economy. doing things, creating new business (doesn't have to be manufacturing, we're a service society now), that's what improves an economy. a bunch of people just wanting things and spending money on things they can't afford with money they don't have produces nothing. if people can't afford to buy things now, they shouldn't be buying things. we have to get back to reality. it's really that simple i think. we can't have a boom economy forever.

Most of the items you listed were perhaps luxury goods in a previous era, however today they're basically necessities. I also agree that NEW technology is always expensive.

Consumer spending absolutely does drive the economy. Production only increases when there's a demand for that product (or service). Which I why I argued the tax break falacy. Production is regulated (by a company) to ensure that their products are profitable.


Creating a new business is almost impossible right now in many areas, you need to have money first. As the old saying goes "you need to have money to make money". One of the primary reasons for small business failures is insufficient capital.

To use a service example:
The last ambulance service I worked at was a for profit, private ambulance service. Granted it was terribly mismanaged (friends and family as managers rather then qualified people). There's a VERY high demand in this area for a transport service (SWPA has the 2nd highest elderly population per capita in the US), the company also has VERY lucrative contracts.

However I couldn't start an ambulance service if I wanted to, it's simply financially undoable. To get a small service up and running (3 trucks or so) would take over 500k.

agree with the first point, but these figures are already adjusted for inflation. is the assumption that we should be getting richer as a people ad infinitum? so a million years from now, a person making 15k a year should theoretically be a millionaire? it doesn't follow. but considering technological innovations, it can be argued that even a poor person today in America lives better than a king a thousand years ago.

I never said I wanted everyone to be rich, quite the opposite. However we do have an eroding middle class, and that's due largely to wage stagnation.

Overall quality of life IS going down however. People don't have savings, and are living paycheck to paycheck. To use myself as an example I was part of the working poor for several years. Believe me it's not a very good or healthy life. I also didn't spend myself into that situation, I just couldn't make enough money to get out of it.

Let's suppose for a minute that you don't have any savings (not a stretch for most people), and something breaks on your car. We can even say that the problem is on the cheaper end and the repairs will only cost $1000. Well you need reliable transportation to get to work, so you have a few alternatives.

1) You can use credit to pay for the repairs. However since you don't have anything in savings it's unlikely that you have the disposable income to really pay this off.
2) You can get a different car. If you own your car (and it's worth anything) you might be able to trade it in for something you can get some use out of. However chances are a car of equal value would be old and unreliable as well.
3) You can use public transportation to go to work. While this is cheaper (then a car payment) it's not THAT cheap. I just looked at the cost of a bus pass for my locality, and it's $150/month.

Most people don't go into debt from overspending, they go into debt because they don't have enough money to cover life being life.

Lets use an average single person (30k annual wages, or give or take $15/hr):
30k-(30%)taxes is 21k annual take home.

1BR apartment-450/mo, 5400 annually.
Lets say the only utility you have to pay is electric, and you're on a budget plan of $100/mo. 1200 annually.

Lets say a cheap car payment of $300/mo, 3600 annually.
Cheap insurance 100/mo, 1200 annually.

So just after housing and car payment we're at 11.4k, so already half of the yearly income is spent.

Now lets say you spend 200/mo on food, and 100/mo on gas. That's 3600 annually and we're at 15k.

Lets give us dirt cheap health insurance for 150/mo.
Lets say we bundle our cable/phone/internet for 150/mo. We're not at 18.6k.
We put 100/mo into our 401k. 1200.

If you use a cell phone for work at all, you can't really get away with prepaid. A cheap package is 100/mo, so we're at 21k.

I didn't even factor in that we usually need to buy some new clothes/shoes. Mom and Dad still have birthdays, mothers/fathers day, and Christmas (or whatever holiday). We still have a need to be social, and have friends.

Each of the prices I gave were a total lowball as well, in reality many of those payments are much higher.

So basically you can forget about any kind of savings, or any preparation for an oh shit life moment. Most people aren't going into debt because they spending excessively, they're going into debt because they're not getting an adequate wage!

Simply having 350/mo extra would substantially increase your quality of life. We're only talking about a little over 4k per year. Under my scenario this "average" American has no disposable income at all. This is not a far fetched example at all.


This is a short and simple article.
http://conceptualmath.org/philo/status1.htm

I think several people have given some thought about this seriously. It is one of the biggest issues this year in the US. The fact that others disagree with you does not make them less thoughtful than you......nor does it make your statements fact. Take this following statement you made. Not a serious statement in my opinion.
"In a sense you can say that health care has not evolved to a state where it makes sense to privatize it."

I don't mind when people disagree. I just try to make sure that they don't lose contact with reality.
You don't understand what I'm hinting at with that statement?

Ahhhhh.....that famous word that begs for more government regulations and interference. This is the foundation of liberal economics. "We must make things fair?" Which dictator decides what is "fair"?

The people who vote.

The word "FAIR" is completely subjective and it is the reason there is so much argument about economic facts (creating fallacies). Poeple who only care about FAIRNESS, never seem to care about reality. They want "Reality to take a vacation".

If a player in a market becomes too dominant then competition is no longer fair.

...

WIth a higher social mobility there are not that many poor people you have to support. But I guess poor people are only poor because they are lazy bastards?

Yes, this is one of the major gaps between the two sides: Razor is always talking about FAIRNESS .... and he seems willing to throw the baby out with the bath water.


I agree that there should always be "FAIR" markets or "FAIR" competition -- meaning that there be competition -- not pandering or paying off the weakest links/losers. The Government should not be picking winners and losers in any market.

You are not a fan of anti-trust?

Again, the Government has not allowed real competition. They have segmented and regulated the market so badly...... and now they want to be the saviours.
Here are a couple of other words, "DEBT" and "ACCOUNTABILITY". Something Government is very bad at . Is this in the equation at all?


Until there is true competition in the US, and an understanding of what "competition" really is, then the debate will go no where. I will always find it amazing that there are people who think the Government is the only answer. Never fix the problems.....just dogpile it with mountains of legislation and regulations -- without accountability for their mistakes (we give them fat pensions).

You have very little faith in democracy... It is very likely I would feel the same if I lived in the US.

I think several people have given some thought about this seriously. It is one of the biggest issues this year in the US. The fact that others disagree with you does not make them less thoughtful than you......nor does it make your statements fact. Take this following statement you made. Not a serious statement in my opinion.
"In a sense you can say that health care has not evolved to a state where it makes sense to privatize it."

Ahhhhh.....that famous word that begs for more government regulations and interference. This is the foundation of liberal economics. "We must make things fair?" Which dictator decides what is "fair"?

The idea is that people have a fair chance to be productive members of society. What they do with this opportunity is up to them. The governments job is most certainly not to enforce equality of outcomes, that is a disastrous situation and certainly something I'd argue strongly against.

The word "FAIR" is completely subjective and it is the reason there is so much argument about economic facts (creating fallacies). Poeple who only care about FAIRNESS, never seem to care about reality. They want "Reality to take a vacation".

I'm someone who cares about fairness who also cares about reality. The reality of the situation is that people want to live in a society that reduces overall suffering. When this societal goal is lost bad things happen. When people who have significant merit that contribute significantly to society aren't able to live as well as others with less merit resentment is generated. People who become destitute through no fault of their own are not going to be waiting to live in such a society.

The reality is that economics can never be removed from politics, people are people, and people want to be governed in such a way that they have some opportunities to live a life with as little suffering as possible.

Seeing as you keep talking about these "facts" you might do well to outline the axiomatic basis for your system of understanding the world. I'm sure that these axioms are different to mine. I'm a big fan of logical reasoning being used to better society, illogical arguments don't cut it for me. Seeing what the basis for your system of reasoning would greatly improve that chances of a meaningful discussion if you were willing or able to engage in such a discussion.

"FAIR" is whatever you decide it is -- or the next dictator etc.
Is it FAIR that, some guy wrecks his health recklessly, and then makes me pay? (other side of coin)
Is it FAIR that poor couples have 7 kids, and then make me pay?
Is it FAIR that the EU is in financial straits because some participating countries gamed the system.

It's very clear that you have some strong beliefs as to what you think is "fair" and unfair", so please do explain to us why you think that your beliefs have more validity that those of others. I suspect that outlining the axiomatic basis for your system of reasoning would probably be greatly beneficial here.

I don't mind when people disagree. I just try to make sure that they don't lose contact with reality.
You don't understand what I'm hinting at with that statement?

It looked like you believe it should be nationalized (opposite of privatize).

The people who vote.

Which is why the Democratic party always tries to game the election system -- the more victims found/created, the more votes. Be the biggest Santa Claus of them all -- and get the vote.

If a player in a market becomes too dominant then competition is no longer fair.

This is what Karl Marx taught -- and it is the basis of Marxism (and its offspring Socialism, Communism.) I used to believe this.
....... But now I realize that it is the Government who stifles competition (in any market). Small businesses cannot get past all of the red-tape and permits etc. EPA is a criminal organziation in this sense. The Government is never held responsible or accountable for their mistakes -- while picking winners and losers.

WIth a higher social mobility there are not that many poor people you have to support. But I guess poor people are only poor because they are lazy bastards?

Yeah, right. Exactly. LOL ..... Lots of reasons. Is it fair that I buy their house and feed their kids? Point is....you cannot pick winners and losers. The Government sucks at picking winners and loses. People and politicians GAME the system.

You are not a fan of anti-trust?

I was until AJ talked about it in another debate.
Libertarians argue against it. Milton Friedman said he was a "libertarian with a small l". He talked a lot about getting rid of other govt agencies completely.
............ We could say that I am leaning against the fence (neutral need to study it again).

You have very little faith in democracy... It is very likely I would feel the same if I lived in the US.

Democracies are scary, for sure. That is why dictators don't like it.
Currently, my faith is being tested. lol
.....I submit this. You have little faith in people. Free Markets are people. Businesses are people. Workers are people.
.......What do I have little faith in? Almost nil faith in Big bloated Government and the people who work for Governments (term limits). Repeat. Govt takes No responsibility or Accountability for huge mistakes. Intelligentsia thinking it is the smartest, and can make rules for everyone else -- with inpunity for their mistakes.


---BONUS: lol
Charles Krauthammer is one of my favorite commentators. He is another guy who gives history lessons, and proves to be accurate about a lot of his observations. He said this a few weeks ago (paraphrased by memory)........"The current financial crisis in Europe (Greece, Italy, etc) is like a gift to the USA. It is warning of what happens (to which countries) when socialism/welfare/early-retirement/long-vacations/big-pensions outweighs their productivity, and bank accounts (debt)."

.....It's very clear that you have some strong beliefs as to what you think is "fair" and unfair", so please do explain to us why you think that your beliefs have more validity that those of others. I suspect that outlining the axiomatic basis for your system of reasoning would probably be greatly beneficial here.

No. You do not hear me talking about "fairness" . lol

My idea of fairness is exactly like the story of the Ants and Grasshoppers:
Phase 1: Ants work hard and store their supplies. Grasshoppers laugh at them and play all summer.
Phase 2: Winter comes. Grasshoppers Community Organizer starts a frenzy, "WTF. This is not FAIR. We should get the government to steal (tax and permit) the ants' food -- and give it to us."
Phase 3: Ants lose interest in working so hard. They do just enough to get by next year. Grasshoppers are already hooked on the habit, and keep demanding Government help them. In the end, everyone has less. No one improves.


My main argument is fundamental. Government sucks at fairness, and should not be trusted to pick winners and losers. Free and competitive markets will ALWAYS get the best product/service to the customer. Govt, not?



-----------------------------------------
My axiom? lol
My beliefs apparently lean toward Libertarian views. I am a financial conservative. I am poorer than I wish, but I no longer have debt either. I believe people and governments should be held responsible and accountable for themselves. They are not held accountable, because it is not possible to do everything -- and balance a budget. This goverment has not had a budget for 3-4 years. Criminal. Not business smart. Or just dont'give a crap about trillions in debt.

........I do my best to be neutral about social issues, but that does not mean I will sit and listen to someone pontificate lies and fallacies as fact (Government is best BS)
........If you want to know what I believe.....read Thomas Sowell. Solid history lessons (reality).

Beyond that, Hazlitt and Milton Friedman come to mind. Bookshelf, libraries, and audiobooks.
I also did my Masters in International Administration (but work in tech). This is the reason for my curiosity/interest on international issues. It is all history.
........where do I live? Guadalajara.
........Where am I from? Sacramento. But father was Air Force. New country/state every 3 years.
Anything else needed for my Axiom? lol

@sneakers I dont think we have the same understanding of Marxism and axiom. And why this hate against the EPA? And you are misinformed about the situation in Europe

And why this hate against the EPA? And you are misinformed about the situation in Europe

Sneakers is on level 1 thinking, which is why I have grown tired of responding to him.

Nawhead wrote:

this is a fair criticism i think. but like Sneakers said, we haven't have true free markets in the US for a long time. but i have to refer back to the article by Friedman where his solution is that we need to either open up the healthcare market fully or let the government take it over (i prefer the former obv) because what we have now isn't working. what we have now are inefficient, non-competitive monopolies that form when government decides it knows better than the market and picks the winners and/or puts up barriers to competition.

i agree with Sneakers's assessment of the US healthcare industry. the problems it has now isn't due to competition or profiteering, but the opposite in fact (not to mention the disconnect of the payer and tort reform). Obamacare doesn't fix anything as it merely enlarges the current mess of a system.

All economics removes the humanity for the people. You happen to be talking about free markets, but communism does the same thing. It all works wonderfully when you stop considering people are people. It's not your fault that theory and general principles can't really be applied intact to the real world. No one's been applying it to the real world, and no one will. They can't, it's too muddied.
IMO Capitalism is a great system if kept from devouring itself. Left alone it will kill itself. A few rules and it works better than anything else we've got to date.

Non-competitive monopolies form without government. They form with it too, no doubt, but to get rid of the latter doesn't mean you get rid of the former. The nature of capitalism at least in America, is the consolidation of industry. You can't buy a Tucker, Packard, or Studebaker anymore. These small automakers didn't all fail due to inferior products, many got gobbled up, by Ford and GM mostly. We didn't start out with a telecommunications monopoly, but we ended up with Ma Bell, which the government had to break up (probably before you were born). People talk about market forces but never the force exerted by the players in the market.

I do not agree with Sneakers assessment of the current state of US healthcare, but do agree that Obamacare is not a fix. I don't think it was intended to be. There are some fixes in it, but it doesn't fix the whole thing, and again I don't think it is the end game. I disagree that it enlarges the current systemic problems, though it doesn't effectively address them.
Corporate interests being opposed to or not aligned with end user interests is a huge problem for our health care industry. Insurers try to mitigate patient care, not mitigate costs. Doctors don't operate efficiently or in the interests of the patient over their own. Medical supply and equipment companies try to get their products used, whether it's in the best interest of the patient or not. Companies always act in their own interests. And that's great for the vast majority of products and services. But here we're talking about the first of our unalienable rights - to life. That should not be determined by a random handful of corporations acting in their own benefit. You want to try and sell me a pair of jeans that is also a wireless hotspot, good for you and have at it. You want to decide I have to die of cancer only after you've sucked all the money I had out of me, I say rude words at you.

and to address another point for Medic, the recent housing crisis and resulting financial crisis was largely due to the US government recklessly pouring credit into the housing market (tho the market does bear much blame in relying too much on derivatives and underestimating risks of blow-up) because of some moral desire that all Americans should have a "right" to a home.

I don't want to get into it again, but it is false that the financial crisis was due to the US government recklessly pouring credit anywhere. The most culpability the government has is repealing Glass Steagall.

(and Medic, i'll respond to your last few posts properly, it's just that replying to Steppin is so much fun!)

I do enjoy me some arguin'

Food in very poor regions of the world can be compared to health care. But the competition and resource profiles are more frequently than not completely different

You can compare over the counter drugs with food. As soon as you need to consult an expert in order to figure out what to buy we have a very different type of product.

In a sense you can say that health care has not evolved to a state where it makes sense to privatize it.

improva, this really is an interesting view, and maybe i see where the deep disconnect is. so you think all industries must evolve to privatize or only certain industries that have the information asymmetry (or just expert problem) must evolve in order to privatize?

do you think even small groups of people can cooperate? or is your basic view 1) that there is no "invisible hand" upon which the free market theory is based? or if you acknowledge it, 2) maybe that the invisible hand cannot achieve a greater good for society as free market theory says? or maybe further, even if it can do good, 3) just like in the theory of communism, it can never in reality be achieved as it goes against human nature or humans will always try to game the system as Steppin is saying?

Nice strawman.

People should have wealth based on their merit and yes that leads to inequalities, but I actually said that myself. But just because inequalities exist is not a solid argument for creating more inequalities.

It's most definitely dubious to take every argument to the extreme and then base your position on that, hopefully you can see why.

i do sound like an extreme-debate robot don't i? lol. you're right. i think i'm misapplying what Hazlitt and Friedman do in their arguments of extending the logic and trying to see the secondary consequences.

So because they have "life sustaining" in common you want to treat them the same despite recognizing that they have huge differences?

i was only trying to understand what improva was saying. i personally wouldn't give either special status or use some criteria as a means of determining whether one should be state-controlled or allowed to be privatized as i fundamentally believe the market is smarter than me or any group of intellectuals. in theory, anyway.

Similar models work in larger countries. Size should actually be an advantage.

omg, i have to post this talk by Nassim Taleb on scalability.

http://youtu.be/g0ShuJ5Maz8?t=3m19s

tl;dw, "the biggest bullshit in history is the notion of economies of scale" - N. Taleb



[edit: throwing relevant thoughts together here.]

Steppin said:

The nature of capitalism at least in America, is the consolidation of industry. You can't buy a Tucker, Packard, or Studebaker anymore. These small automakers didn't all fail due to inferior products, many got gobbled up, by Ford and GM mostly. We didn't start out with a telecommunications monopoly, but we ended up with Ma Bell, which the government had to break up (probably before you were born). People talk about market forces but never the force exerted by the players in the market.

but assuming Taleb is right, that economies of scale does not lead to efficiency, that all these big companies will eventually fail if government stops interfering by bailing out GM, Goldman Sachs, etc., aren't these repeated blow-ups the market working in reality to create room for competition?

EDIT: BTW, great video. It makes a lot of sense. People's decisions and "shame"/guilt change in bigger populations, which affects their degree of responsibility and accountability (especiallly government workers).
-----------------

but assuming Taleb is right, that economies of scale does not lead to efficiency, that all these big companies will eventually fail if government stops interfering by bailing out GM, Goldman Sachs, etc., aren't these repeated blow-ups the market working in reality to create room for competition?

Yes. Government intervention hides the problems -- rather than allowing weaknesses to be dealt with, and strengths to be built via competitors for market.

Also there is a cost to doing bail-outs. More risk, because someone else will provide a bail out. Failures are rewarded for failing. Greece has been a recent country example of this. Germany and others bailing them out. (I am a few weeks behind on this specific news.)

There is a name for this type of risk, where helping actually creates less "risk-adverse" behaviour in a market. ....... I forget the term right now. Will see if I can find it.

EDIT: Moral Hazard
Says it better than I could say it above. lol

".............A party makes a decision about how much risk to take, while another party bears the costs if things go badly, and the party insulated from risk behaves differently than how it would if it were fully exposed to the risk.............."

NOTE: this is kind of like me in poker. When someone stakes me a night (not my money or risk), I become a better poker player -- less risk adverse. It says a lot about me and my style of playing. I actually enjoy the game more too.

Sneaks I agree with the bailout thing 100%.
While this doesn't really much apply to the bailout of equity firms, it did save up to millions of jobs in the automotive industry. Because with the auto industry there's the secondary, and tertiary effects (such as parts manufacturers, transportation,etc), that aren't applicable to equity firms.

While I think that businesses should be allowed to fail, many on the list are still tanked or virtually gone despite the bailout money. The automotive industry also gets some unwarranted shit (not that I'm defending them), there's exactly 2 car manufacturers on the list of several hundred companies that got bailout money.

I stopped counting at 250, which was only 1/2 way down the page, so we can guesstimate somewhere around 500 companies. 2 of which are auto companies, 498 are banking/mortgage/insurance/investment firms.

http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list

Steppin said:

but assuming Taleb is right, that economies of scale does not lead to efficiency, that all these big companies will eventually fail if government stops interfering by bailing out GM, Goldman Sachs, etc., aren't these repeated blow-ups the market working in reality to create room for competition?

I think you will find that although government has bailed out companies in the past and is likely at some point to do so in the future, big companies do not inherently fail. That is to say, Ma Bell was not failing when the government broke it up. Microsoft has not received bailout dollars nor has Apple and the two of them control huge market shares. Are they waxing and not yet waning? Perhaps. IBM didn't get bailout money and they are still around. GE and DuPont are huge companies not needing bailouts for a pretty long time now.
I don't think economies of scale are efficient, but I also don't think that efficiency is a useful gauge of potential success or failure. I do think if we each collected rainfall and each had our own solar panels and local power sources that it would in fact be cheaper and more efficient to get water and power. But there's less money in that, and the accumulation of money is the driving force of capitalism.

.... but I also don't think that efficiency is a useful gauge of potential success or failure.....

Another WTF. Competition not always good for customer? Efficiency not a good guage? Kind of explains why some individuals cherish big lethargic Governments. Fantasy world. Collect rainfall. Solar Panels. Grow a big beard (like I am doing now btw. lol).

Anyways.....In today's Information world, if one does not strive to have efficiency, they are either the "Government" or a company losing market share, which in the real world should mean sell, merger,or bankrupcty. -- not another free bailout.


==
Bad Thinking at the poker table...."Let's hope reality takes a vacation."