Thread: Health Care a Human Right?
05-05-2017, 09:04 PM
-
#121
- vt2medellin
- Registered User
-
- vt2medellin
- Registered User
- Join Date: Sep 2015
- Location: United States
- Posts: 1,147
- Rep Power: 2151
-
-
Originally Posted By FlexLex⏩
Short answer: yesSo are you also against public parks, roads, bridges, and schools, or are we being a hypocrite here? None of those things are rights that protect you aginst someone else, all are paid through "extortion", or in non primitive terms, taxation.
I believe the proper function of the federal government is national defense, police force, court system, jails, etc. Parks, roads, bridges and schools should all be handled privately.
Formerly MedellnMiscer, Currently BostonMiscer
05-05-2017, 09:11 PM
-
#122
- faxanadu
- Registered User
-
- faxanadu
- Registered User
- Join Date: Sep 2009
- Location: Texas, United States
- Posts: 13,123
- Rep Power: 54413
-
-
Originally Posted By Hadtodoit⏩
Yup. The telecom and utility monopolies were created over 50 years ago. Now its health care and insurance monopolies they're targeting. And of course the auto industry has done everything through government to limit competition (Tucker Motors, Tesla).Your post is what I see as the biggest threat to the US for the near future. Less competition in our marketplace for nearly everything.
2 major phone brands
2 major internet/TV providers
very few major automakers
few major real estate providers
too few of everything, it's why the cost of living is higher than ever compared to income. It's so wrong and needs to be halted, somehow.
2 major phone brands
2 major internet/TV providers
very few major automakers
few major real estate providers
too few of everything, it's why the cost of living is higher than ever compared to income. It's so wrong and needs to be halted, somehow.
All began with the passing of the FED and IRS act which has subsequently caused an explosion in government and cronyism.
"There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle." -Gym Jones
"The soul becomes dyed with the color of its thoughts." - Marcus Aurelius
?start=(#seconds)
TAMU Corps
Skydiving
Great Divide Mountain Bike Route (Jasper AB to Juarez MX) 2014
Appalachian Trail 2013
05-05-2017, 09:12 PM
-
#123
- Bloggs24
- Registered User
-
- Bloggs24
- Registered User
- Join Date: Apr 2014
- Age: 36
- Posts: 82
- Rep Power: 0
-
-
Originally Posted By vt2medellin⏩
What a load of bull****.People own themselves and exist in time. To take somebody's life is to take their future, to take somebody's liberty is to take their present and to take somebody's property is to take the part of their past that produced it. True freedom is having the right to one's life, liberty and property. Life, liberty and property can be infringed upon by government or by individuals, and each is equally bad. A police force exists to protect citizen's lives, liberties and property, and though it requires some extortion (taxation) to pay for it, that is a less flagrant violation of the right to life, liberty and property than the constant murder, enslavement and theft that would occur without a police force. On the other hand, medical services require much more extortion, and they don't actually protect the negative rights of citizens from one another, which is the only legitimate role of government.
You have two options, enslave medical professionals or extort everybody else to pay the medical professionals. Either way it's a violation of negative freedom. That's a hilariously inaccurate straw-man, capitalism isn't against sharing profit or risk, it just makes sure transactions are consensual. Health insurance would still be fine so long as people bought it on their own volition.
Game theory make collusion very unlikely, if not impossible. Government, on the other hand, enacts berries of entry which keep potential competitors out and makes collusion more likely. If we use your solution, healthcare becomes a full monopoly, which is worse than a mostly competitive market.
You have two options, enslave medical professionals or extort everybody else to pay the medical professionals. Either way it's a violation of negative freedom. That's a hilariously inaccurate straw-man, capitalism isn't against sharing profit or risk, it just makes sure transactions are consensual. Health insurance would still be fine so long as people bought it on their own volition.
Game theory make collusion very unlikely, if not impossible. Government, on the other hand, enacts berries of entry which keep potential competitors out and makes collusion more likely. If we use your solution, healthcare becomes a full monopoly, which is worse than a mostly competitive market.
You believe the only role of government is to protect individuals from individuals, but not corporations from individuals, you also believe taxes = extortion, that's pretty retarded.
Government is the management of a nation, you are not an individual, your citizenship is a membership in society. Taxes are the fees for being a member, those taxes go towards services and projects that benefit its members.
The police force is paid by taxes because it is a service that benefits all members.
The Fire Departments are paid by taxes because it is a service that benefits all members.
The Postal Services are paid with taxes because it a service that benefits all members.
Roads, Parks, Bridges, Airports, Schools etc etc are paid with taxes because they benefit all members
WHY THE **** IS HEALTHCARE DIFFERENT.
How does game theory make collusion unlikely if not impossible? You make this statement but dont explain why...
Game theory is the study of human conflict and cooperation within a competitive situation.
When the goal is making money off consumers, game theory would dictate cooperation is the ideal solution. Instead of 2 companies racing to the bottom, they can collude and maximize profits.If anything you said was true, America would have the lowest prices per capita for healthcare and prescription drugs then every other nation with single payer healthcare, guess what you pay the most, lemme guess, Obamacare REEEEEE!
05-05-2017, 09:16 PM
-
#124
(posting this again on the newer page hoping to get an answer)
So, since you think I'm missing something, teach me. I'll refresh this soon.
Let's say hypothetically there were originally 50 producers of bicycles. Capitalism at it's best, some fail, some excel and get rich, etc etc.
Over time those 50 turn into 10, because some failed, some were bought, etc. All normal.
What about when you fast forward another twenty years, and what if there are only two producers of bicycles TOTAL?
On top of that, the bicycles are now so complex and modern, and distribution is so complex across the whole US that there's absolutely no way your average Joe or even your rich Joe can start a company to compete. You simply couldn't.
Now these two providers still have to compete against each other, but let's just say they both decide to pay employees less. Before, if one company paid less, you'd go to the other company, simple. Now though, there's only two options for your skillset. Turns out, the company can keep the same profits and pay employees less because they don't have much of a choice. Sure they still compete against company B but they both know the deal.
What if both companies start charging a little more? If they both shake hands behind closed doors, profits through the roof. There's a little competition but not enough.
In my head, this is part of the problem with today's companies. You can't simply go compete with Apple and Android, or Delta and American Airlines, or this and that. At least, we're headed in the direction of two after they keep acquiring each other.
Is this not as big of a problem as I think it is? Teach me something, and please don't be biased.
Originally Posted By Mythenthefang⏩
I think you misunderstood my first message, I'm very pro capitalism, just complaining about the lack of competition driving prices down.That's because you don't correctly grasp that competition is aprocessnot a static number of providers.
Where that process is frustrated by barriers to entry created by government is where suffering begins.
Where that process is frustrated by barriers to entry created by government is where suffering begins.
So, since you think I'm missing something, teach me. I'll refresh this soon.
Let's say hypothetically there were originally 50 producers of bicycles. Capitalism at it's best, some fail, some excel and get rich, etc etc.
Over time those 50 turn into 10, because some failed, some were bought, etc. All normal.
What about when you fast forward another twenty years, and what if there are only two producers of bicycles TOTAL?
On top of that, the bicycles are now so complex and modern, and distribution is so complex across the whole US that there's absolutely no way your average Joe or even your rich Joe can start a company to compete. You simply couldn't.
Now these two providers still have to compete against each other, but let's just say they both decide to pay employees less. Before, if one company paid less, you'd go to the other company, simple. Now though, there's only two options for your skillset. Turns out, the company can keep the same profits and pay employees less because they don't have much of a choice. Sure they still compete against company B but they both know the deal.
What if both companies start charging a little more? If they both shake hands behind closed doors, profits through the roof. There's a little competition but not enough.
In my head, this is part of the problem with today's companies. You can't simply go compete with Apple and Android, or Delta and American Airlines, or this and that. At least, we're headed in the direction of two after they keep acquiring each other.
Is this not as big of a problem as I think it is? Teach me something, and please don't be biased.
05-05-2017, 09:18 PM
-
#125
- faxanadu
- Registered User
-
- faxanadu
- Registered User
- Join Date: Sep 2009
- Location: Texas, United States
- Posts: 13,123
- Rep Power: 54413
-
-
Originally Posted By BrocepCurls⏩
Capitalism can't exploit anything. Only people and corrupt governments can do that.Your argument so far has been based on exploitation of third world workers, something which Capitalism (True™ or fake) depends on entirely. So your whole argument against Universal Healthcare is one giant incoherent fail, even by misc standards
"There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle." -Gym Jones
"The soul becomes dyed with the color of its thoughts." - Marcus Aurelius
?start=(#seconds)
TAMU Corps
Skydiving
Great Divide Mountain Bike Route (Jasper AB to Juarez MX) 2014
Appalachian Trail 2013
05-05-2017, 09:26 PM
-
#126
- faxanadu
- Registered User
-
- faxanadu
- Registered User
- Join Date: Sep 2009
- Location: Texas, United States
- Posts: 13,123
- Rep Power: 54413
-
-
Originally Posted By Bloggs24⏩
You have no earthly idea what Rights are. Not even close. You seriously need to go read a lot if that is your understanding of what Rights are.If you mama is being robbed, does she have a right to the police services?
If you house is on fire, do you have a right to the fire services?
Why should healthcare be any different?
Doctors and nurses dont become slaves all of a sudden, they still get paid. If all you *******s truly believed in capitalism, you would support cutting out the middleman (insurance companies) and negotiate prices directly with the healthcare providers and drug companies, a government that covers all it's citizens has more negotiating power to drive down costs. As proven by every other first world nations.
Buh buh buh but competition lower prices! Not when all the competition agree to work together to rip off consumers and make more money then they could by 'competing' with each other.
If you house is on fire, do you have a right to the fire services?
Why should healthcare be any different?
Doctors and nurses dont become slaves all of a sudden, they still get paid. If all you *******s truly believed in capitalism, you would support cutting out the middleman (insurance companies) and negotiate prices directly with the healthcare providers and drug companies, a government that covers all it's citizens has more negotiating power to drive down costs. As proven by every other first world nations.
Buh buh buh but competition lower prices! Not when all the competition agree to work together to rip off consumers and make more money then they could by 'competing' with each other.
"There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle." -Gym Jones
"The soul becomes dyed with the color of its thoughts." - Marcus Aurelius
?start=(#seconds)
TAMU Corps
Skydiving
Great Divide Mountain Bike Route (Jasper AB to Juarez MX) 2014
Appalachian Trail 2013
05-05-2017, 09:30 PM
-
#127
- Mythenthefang
- Registered User
-
- Mythenthefang
- Registered User
- Join Date: Aug 2013
- Age: 37
- Posts: 4,289
- Rep Power: 6787
-
-
Originally Posted By Hadtodoit⏩
First we'll take on the idea that two competing firms in an unencumbered market (i.e no government intervention) can contract to drive price up by restricting quantity AND that this is a stable equilibrium.I think you misunderstood my first message, I'm very pro capitalism, just complaining about the lack of competition driving prices down.
So, since you think I'm missing something, teach me. I'll refresh this soon.
Let's say hypothetically there were originally 50 producers of bicycles. Capitalism at it's best, some fail, some excel and get rich, etc etc.
Over time those 50 turn into 10, because some failed, some were bought, etc. All normal.
What about when you fast forward another twenty years, and what if there are only two producers of bicycles TOTAL?
On top of that, the bicycles are now so complex and modern, and distribution is so complex across the whole US that there's absolutely no way your average Joe or even your rich Joe can start a company to compete. You simply couldn't.
Now these two providers still have to compete against each other, but let's just say they both decide to pay employees less. Before, if one company paid less, you'd go to the other company, simple. Now though, there's only two options for your skillset. Turns out, the company can keep the same profits and pay employees less because they don't have much of a choice. Sure they still compete against company B but they both know the deal.
What if both companies start charging a little more? If they both shake hands behind closed doors, profits through the roof. There's a little competition but not enough.
In my head, this is part of the problem with today's companies. You can't simply go compete with Apple and Android, or Delta and American Airlines, or this and that. At least, we're headed in the direction of two after they keep acquiring each other.
Is this not as big of a problem as I think it is? Teach me something, and please don't be biased.
So, since you think I'm missing something, teach me. I'll refresh this soon.
Let's say hypothetically there were originally 50 producers of bicycles. Capitalism at it's best, some fail, some excel and get rich, etc etc.
Over time those 50 turn into 10, because some failed, some were bought, etc. All normal.
What about when you fast forward another twenty years, and what if there are only two producers of bicycles TOTAL?
On top of that, the bicycles are now so complex and modern, and distribution is so complex across the whole US that there's absolutely no way your average Joe or even your rich Joe can start a company to compete. You simply couldn't.
Now these two providers still have to compete against each other, but let's just say they both decide to pay employees less. Before, if one company paid less, you'd go to the other company, simple. Now though, there's only two options for your skillset. Turns out, the company can keep the same profits and pay employees less because they don't have much of a choice. Sure they still compete against company B but they both know the deal.
What if both companies start charging a little more? If they both shake hands behind closed doors, profits through the roof. There's a little competition but not enough.
In my head, this is part of the problem with today's companies. You can't simply go compete with Apple and Android, or Delta and American Airlines, or this and that. At least, we're headed in the direction of two after they keep acquiring each other.
Is this not as big of a problem as I think it is? Teach me something, and please don't be biased.
This is just a formal way of saying your example "What if both companies start charging a little more? If they both shake hands behind closed doors, profits through the roof. There's a little competition but not enough."
Say two companies did, for some reason, make this contract. Think about what happens in future periods after the contract. Since the price is high each company has an incentive to increase production by some amount to earn even more profit than the amount guaranteed under the agreement.
Each company knows that the other will have this incentive in future periods, so in period 0 when they enter negotiations (if they even do) each will understand that the other is highly likely to increase his quantity sold and increase profit he makes. Since they both understand this they would never reach a contract to restrict quantity.
I have't done anything fancy here, just trying to give you the intuition of the Bertrand competition game. If you'd like a mathematical example (though it can obfuscate things) google a Bertrand equilibrium.
To take on the rest of your question I think rather than presenting the formal logic (which would likely take me a good few hours to type) maybe it would be instructive to ask yourself whether competing with the two bicycle makers in the bicycle market is really the best idea anyway?
We've already shown that if these two companies are producing the same product (as you assume) then any collaboration between them to restrict quantity to increase price and profit is not a stable equilibrium.
But we also need to consider that there are substitutes to bicycles which offer competitors entry in the market for consumer transport (I will not enumerate them for fear that doing so will obstruct the general idea).
Some of these products are better for at least some consumers (value is subjective).
Companies don't just compete with the other companies in their own narrow space, they compete with many others who offer substitutes. This is why we see amazing things like Google search being made available completely free to consumers, same with ******** (I submit that these are platform markets which is a special case due to network externalities).
I'm not sure anyone has even managed to show how an unencumbered market would tend toward a stable monopoly charging monopoly prices and producing monopoly quantitites. Sure some markets have very few competitors and in some markets only one firm can truly survive, but the threat of entry has been shown to be sufficient to prevent the monopoly quantity and price - at least in unencumbered markets. I do emphasize that there are VERY few unencumbered markets in the real world. Some are very close, such as the market for shoes (in NZ anyway).
For much deeper thought than this I encourage you to visit the work by Donald Boudreaux on "dumping" and other competition issues. For a proper understanding i'm afraid I can't give you the tools necessary over an internet forum.
Suffice to say, much work has one into elucidating the competitive process under many assumptions. Economists have moved forward since the 70s where we believed that markets had to be hammered by government until there were n suppliers serving n consumers. I believe people refer to it as the Chicago school of economic thought.
I must also point out that it is incorrect to assume either unencumbered markets or government controlled markets are perfectly good for everyone all the time. That is the nirvana fallacy.
The big difference between unencumbered markets and government controlled ones is the profitand losssystem. This is what makes every market regulated, and regulated by the only people that matter - the consumers.
Natty poverty maintenance crew
Actual economist crew
Austrian school crew
05-05-2017, 09:34 PM
-
#128
- faxanadu
- Registered User
-
- faxanadu
- Registered User
- Join Date: Sep 2009
- Location: Texas, United States
- Posts: 13,123
- Rep Power: 54413
-
-
Originally Posted By Hadtodoit⏩
Sadly, I don't think half the people in the USA have the intelligence to understand what you said. And you didn't even get into the concept of government setting rules and regulations that make it near impossible for small companies to enter the market place. Drives me crazy that people complain 24/7 about having only two internet providers and yet don't see the same thing happening with health care right before their eyes.I think you misunderstood my first message, I'm very pro capitalism, just complaining about the lack of competition driving prices down.
So, since you think I'm missing something, teach me. I'll refresh this soon.
Let's say hypothetically there were originally 50 producers of bicycles. Capitalism at it's best, some fail, some excel and get rich, etc etc.
Over time those 50 turn into 10, because some failed, some were bought, etc. All normal.
What about when you fast forward another twenty years, and what if there are only two producers of bicycles TOTAL?
On top of that, the bicycles are now so complex and modern, and distribution is so complex across the whole US that there's absolutely no way your average Joe or even your rich Joe can start a company to compete. You simply couldn't.
Now these two providers still have to compete against each other, but let's just say they both decide to pay employees less. Before, if one company paid less, you'd go to the other company, simple. Now though, there's only two options for your skillset. Turns out, the company can keep the same profits and pay employees less because they don't have much of a choice. Sure they still compete against company B but they both know the deal.
What if both companies start charging a little more? If they both shake hands behind closed doors, profits through the roof. There's a little competition but not enough.
In my head, this is part of the problem with today's companies. You can't simply go compete with Apple and Android, or Delta and American Airlines, or this and that. At least, we're headed in the direction of two after they keep acquiring each other.
Is this not as big of a problem as I think it is? Teach me something, and please don't be biased.
So, since you think I'm missing something, teach me. I'll refresh this soon.
Let's say hypothetically there were originally 50 producers of bicycles. Capitalism at it's best, some fail, some excel and get rich, etc etc.
Over time those 50 turn into 10, because some failed, some were bought, etc. All normal.
What about when you fast forward another twenty years, and what if there are only two producers of bicycles TOTAL?
On top of that, the bicycles are now so complex and modern, and distribution is so complex across the whole US that there's absolutely no way your average Joe or even your rich Joe can start a company to compete. You simply couldn't.
Now these two providers still have to compete against each other, but let's just say they both decide to pay employees less. Before, if one company paid less, you'd go to the other company, simple. Now though, there's only two options for your skillset. Turns out, the company can keep the same profits and pay employees less because they don't have much of a choice. Sure they still compete against company B but they both know the deal.
What if both companies start charging a little more? If they both shake hands behind closed doors, profits through the roof. There's a little competition but not enough.
In my head, this is part of the problem with today's companies. You can't simply go compete with Apple and Android, or Delta and American Airlines, or this and that. At least, we're headed in the direction of two after they keep acquiring each other.
Is this not as big of a problem as I think it is? Teach me something, and please don't be biased.
"There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle." -Gym Jones
"The soul becomes dyed with the color of its thoughts." - Marcus Aurelius
?start=(#seconds)
TAMU Corps
Skydiving
Great Divide Mountain Bike Route (Jasper AB to Juarez MX) 2014
Appalachian Trail 2013
05-05-2017, 09:37 PM
-
#129
- faxanadu
- Registered User
-
- faxanadu
- Registered User
- Join Date: Sep 2009
- Location: Texas, United States
- Posts: 13,123
- Rep Power: 54413
-
-
Originally Posted By butwhowasgains⏩
That's where the government is supposed to step in. Except with socialism, the government joins forces with them.This has always been one of the things that confused me about laissez faire economics.
The natural progression of unregulated, competitive markets is always towards oligopoly or monopoly.
Pls someone explain why this is wrong.
The natural progression of unregulated, competitive markets is always towards oligopoly or monopoly.
Pls someone explain why this is wrong.
"There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle." -Gym Jones
"The soul becomes dyed with the color of its thoughts." - Marcus Aurelius
?start=(#seconds)
TAMU Corps
Skydiving
Great Divide Mountain Bike Route (Jasper AB to Juarez MX) 2014
Appalachian Trail 2013
05-05-2017, 09:44 PM
-
#130
- Bloggs24
- Registered User
-
- Bloggs24
- Registered User
- Join Date: Apr 2014
- Age: 36
- Posts: 82
- Rep Power: 0
-
-
Originally Posted By faxanadu⏩
Explain it to me, "guns are rights hurrrrr". I wasnt talking about your god given constitutional human rights. If you pay for a service you have a right to use said service.You have no earthly idea what Rights are. Not even close. You seriously need to go read a lot if that is your understanding of what Rights are.
05-05-2017, 09:45 PM
-
#131
- Mythenthefang
- Registered User
-
- Mythenthefang
- Registered User
- Join Date: Aug 2013
- Age: 37
- Posts: 4,289
- Rep Power: 6787
-
-
Originally Posted By faxanadu⏩
And why would anyone think the government stepping in "fixes" the "problem". That sounds like the nirvana fallacy - "if only we can get the government involved! everything would be better!"That's where the government is supposed to step in. Except with socialism, the government joins forces with them.
No government is omniscient enough to understand how much to produce, where and when and by what means and for whom. That knowledge is known only to the those involved in any one instant of the market process. It is revealed to the market in general as the process evolves.
Natty poverty maintenance crew
Actual economist crew
Austrian school crew
05-05-2017, 11:35 PM
-
#132
Originally Posted By Mythenthefang⏩
Your response seems well written and pretty intelligent but that doesn't mean automatically you're correct. There's a good chance you are, but there's also a chance you aren't. If it were a flat wrong and right, there wouldn't be debate in economics.First we'll take on the idea that two competing firms in an unencumbered market (i.e no government intervention) can contract to drive price up by restricting quantity AND that this is a stable equilibrium.
This is just a formal way of saying your example "What if both companies start charging a little more? If they both shake hands behind closed doors, profits through the roof. There's a little competition but not enough."
Not necessarily, you assumed I meant drive prices up by restricting quantity similar to the diamond industry. That's not what I meant and sort of changes my question and your response. I simply meant drive prices up, not restrict quantity.
Say two companies did, for some reason, make this contract. Think about what happens in future periods after the contract. Since the price is high each company has an incentive to increase production by some amount to earn even more profit than the amount guaranteed under the agreement.
I'm not sure I see that. Increased prices (assuming all else stays the same) simply means increased profits. I can't automatically assume they will drive volume. Imagine if it's an internet provider or some provider that's already highly penetrated into it's market, like iPhones for example. Producing more may not be the first reaction to more profit. For a publicly traded company, sure, please the shareholders and the CEO has to answer to a board. To privately owned company though? It could just mean line your pockets more. Anyway, still reading..
Each company knows that the other will have this incentive in future periods, so in period 0 when they enter negotiations (if they even do) each will understand that the other is highly likely to increase his quantity sold and increase profit he makes. Since they both understand this they would never reach a contract to restrict quantity.
I also don't follow this. They wouldn't shake hands simply because they would both get rich? I don't understand. Why wouldn't they? Imagine two private companies. Sure, your "competitor" would increase earnings but so would you as a result... the positive outweighs the negative, why would we assume this can't/wouldn't happen?
I have't done anything fancy here, just trying to give you the intuition of the Bertrand competition game. If you'd like a mathematical example (though it can obfuscate things) google a Bertrand equilibrium.
To take on the rest of your question I think rather than presenting the formal logic (which would likely take me a good few hours to type) maybe it would be instructive to ask yourself whether competing with the two bicycle makers in the bicycle market is really the best idea anyway?
We've already shown that if these two companies are producing the same product (as you assume) then any collaboration between them to restrict quantity to increase price and profit is not a stable equilibrium.
But we also need to consider that there are substitutes to bicycles which offer competitors entry in the market for consumer transport (I will not enumerate them for fear that doing so will obstruct the general idea).
Some of these products are better for at least some consumers (value is subjective).
Companies don't just compete with the other companies in their own narrow space, they compete with many others who offer substitutes. This is why we see amazing things like Google search being made available completely free to consumers, same with ******** (I submit that these are platform markets which is a special case due to network externalities).
I'm not sure anyone has even managed to show how an unencumbered market would tend toward a stable monopoly charging monopoly prices and producing monopoly quantitites. Sure some markets have very few competitors and in some markets only one firm can truly survive, but the threat of entry has been shown to be sufficient to prevent the monopoly quantity and price - at least in unencumbered markets. I do emphasize that there are VERY few unencumbered markets in the real world. Some are very close, such as the market for shoes (in NZ anyway).
For much deeper thought than this I encourage you to visit the work by Donald Boudreaux on "dumping" and other competition issues. For a proper understanding i'm afraid I can't give you the tools necessary over an internet forum.
Suffice to say, much work has one into elucidating the competitive process under many assumptions. Economists have moved forward since the 70s where we believed that markets had to be hammered by government until there were n suppliers serving n consumers. I believe people refer to it as the Chicago school of economic thought.
I must also point out that it is incorrect to assume either unencumbered markets or government controlled markets are perfectly good for everyone all the time. That is the nirvana fallacy.
The big difference between unencumbered markets and government controlled ones is the profitand losssystem. This is what makes every market regulated, and regulated by the only people that matter - the consumers.
The rest of your reply, while smart and maybe true, doesn't seem like it applies if you didn't prove your answer above. Maybe I need to hear it again.. any chance you're just wrong on this?
This is just a formal way of saying your example "What if both companies start charging a little more? If they both shake hands behind closed doors, profits through the roof. There's a little competition but not enough."
Not necessarily, you assumed I meant drive prices up by restricting quantity similar to the diamond industry. That's not what I meant and sort of changes my question and your response. I simply meant drive prices up, not restrict quantity.
Say two companies did, for some reason, make this contract. Think about what happens in future periods after the contract. Since the price is high each company has an incentive to increase production by some amount to earn even more profit than the amount guaranteed under the agreement.
I'm not sure I see that. Increased prices (assuming all else stays the same) simply means increased profits. I can't automatically assume they will drive volume. Imagine if it's an internet provider or some provider that's already highly penetrated into it's market, like iPhones for example. Producing more may not be the first reaction to more profit. For a publicly traded company, sure, please the shareholders and the CEO has to answer to a board. To privately owned company though? It could just mean line your pockets more. Anyway, still reading..
Each company knows that the other will have this incentive in future periods, so in period 0 when they enter negotiations (if they even do) each will understand that the other is highly likely to increase his quantity sold and increase profit he makes. Since they both understand this they would never reach a contract to restrict quantity.
I also don't follow this. They wouldn't shake hands simply because they would both get rich? I don't understand. Why wouldn't they? Imagine two private companies. Sure, your "competitor" would increase earnings but so would you as a result... the positive outweighs the negative, why would we assume this can't/wouldn't happen?
I have't done anything fancy here, just trying to give you the intuition of the Bertrand competition game. If you'd like a mathematical example (though it can obfuscate things) google a Bertrand equilibrium.
To take on the rest of your question I think rather than presenting the formal logic (which would likely take me a good few hours to type) maybe it would be instructive to ask yourself whether competing with the two bicycle makers in the bicycle market is really the best idea anyway?
We've already shown that if these two companies are producing the same product (as you assume) then any collaboration between them to restrict quantity to increase price and profit is not a stable equilibrium.
But we also need to consider that there are substitutes to bicycles which offer competitors entry in the market for consumer transport (I will not enumerate them for fear that doing so will obstruct the general idea).
Some of these products are better for at least some consumers (value is subjective).
Companies don't just compete with the other companies in their own narrow space, they compete with many others who offer substitutes. This is why we see amazing things like Google search being made available completely free to consumers, same with ******** (I submit that these are platform markets which is a special case due to network externalities).
I'm not sure anyone has even managed to show how an unencumbered market would tend toward a stable monopoly charging monopoly prices and producing monopoly quantitites. Sure some markets have very few competitors and in some markets only one firm can truly survive, but the threat of entry has been shown to be sufficient to prevent the monopoly quantity and price - at least in unencumbered markets. I do emphasize that there are VERY few unencumbered markets in the real world. Some are very close, such as the market for shoes (in NZ anyway).
For much deeper thought than this I encourage you to visit the work by Donald Boudreaux on "dumping" and other competition issues. For a proper understanding i'm afraid I can't give you the tools necessary over an internet forum.
Suffice to say, much work has one into elucidating the competitive process under many assumptions. Economists have moved forward since the 70s where we believed that markets had to be hammered by government until there were n suppliers serving n consumers. I believe people refer to it as the Chicago school of economic thought.
I must also point out that it is incorrect to assume either unencumbered markets or government controlled markets are perfectly good for everyone all the time. That is the nirvana fallacy.
The big difference between unencumbered markets and government controlled ones is the profitand losssystem. This is what makes every market regulated, and regulated by the only people that matter - the consumers.
The rest of your reply, while smart and maybe true, doesn't seem like it applies if you didn't prove your answer above. Maybe I need to hear it again.. any chance you're just wrong on this?
With that said, thanks for your reply and I added some questions above in bold.
05-05-2017, 11:49 PM
-
#133
- faxanadu
- Registered User
-
- faxanadu
- Registered User
- Join Date: Sep 2009
- Location: Texas, United States
- Posts: 13,123
- Rep Power: 54413
-
-
Originally Posted By Bloggs24⏩
So make a whole post about rights to services you pay for in a thread about constitutional Rights.Explain it to me, "guns are rights hurrrrr". I wasnt talking about your god given constitutional human rights. If you pay for a service you have a right to use said service.
okay...
"There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle." -Gym Jones
"The soul becomes dyed with the color of its thoughts." - Marcus Aurelius
?start=(#seconds)
TAMU Corps
Skydiving
Great Divide Mountain Bike Route (Jasper AB to Juarez MX) 2014
Appalachian Trail 2013
05-05-2017, 11:50 PM
-
#134
- faxanadu
- Registered User
-
- faxanadu
- Registered User
- Join Date: Sep 2009
- Location: Texas, United States
- Posts: 13,123
- Rep Power: 54413
-
-
Originally Posted By Mythenthefang⏩
Looks like you misread my post. I'm against socialism.And why would anyone think the government stepping in "fixes" the "problem". That sounds like the nirvana fallacy - "if only we can get the government involved! everything would be better!"
No government is omniscient enough to understand how much to produce, where and when and by what means and for whom. That knowledge is known only to the those involved in any one instant of the market process. It is revealed to the market in general as the process evolves.
No government is omniscient enough to understand how much to produce, where and when and by what means and for whom. That knowledge is known only to the those involved in any one instant of the market process. It is revealed to the market in general as the process evolves.
"There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle." -Gym Jones
"The soul becomes dyed with the color of its thoughts." - Marcus Aurelius
?start=(#seconds)
TAMU Corps
Skydiving
Great Divide Mountain Bike Route (Jasper AB to Juarez MX) 2014
Appalachian Trail 2013
05-05-2017, 11:59 PM
-
#135
- gunshow101
- Registered User
-
- gunshow101
- Registered User
- Join Date: Oct 2007
- Location: Balding, North Carolina, Chad
- Age: 23
- Posts: 8,505
- Rep Power: 5077
-
-
Originally Posted By iloveus⏩
no, if you have insurance prior to having brain cancer then you're fine. its idiots who wait until they get sick to buy insurance thinking they can just pay $300 to be covered for tens of thousands of dollars with of treatment. if everyone did that insurance companies would be bankrupt. imagine doing this with you car insurance.. wait until total your car and kill somebody then try to get coverage from a company. lol they'll toss you out.I'm not sure if it's a right but I'm more like people deserve to live. Say a person has brain cancer. If he doesn't get the surgery that he needs then he'll die. The insurance company won't do the surgery because of financial/legal reasons. He nor his loved ones can't afford it. 6 months later his brain deteriorates and he dies.
I'm more for universal healthcare due to these type of scenarios.
Now should everyone pay for everybody's healthcare? Probably not.
I'm more for universal healthcare due to these type of scenarios.
Now should everyone pay for everybody's healthcare? Probably not.
buys picture frames with stock photos of happy families and hangs them in house so i feel like i have friends crew.
05-06-2017, 04:33 AM
-
#136
- Bloggs24
- Registered User
-
- Bloggs24
- Registered User
- Join Date: Apr 2014
- Age: 36
- Posts: 82
- Rep Power: 0
-
-
Originally Posted By faxanadu⏩
I'll forgive you if you haven't followed all my posts in this thread. I'm not arguing that Health Care should be made a constitutional right (in fact I dont think anyone has ever said it should be constitutional), im arguing that it should be a public service just like the police services, and the fire and rescue services. When taxes pay for health care as part of a single payer healthcare system, every single citizen is now a paying customer who would have the same rights to the health care services, as they already do with other public services.So make a whole post about rights to services you pay for in a thread about constitutional Rights.
okay...
okay...
no, if you have insurance prior to having brain cancer then you're fine. its idiots who wait until they get sick to buy insurance thinking they can just pay $300 to be covered for tens of thousands of dollars with of treatment. if everyone did that insurance companies would be bankrupt. imagine doing this with you car insurance.. wait until total your car and kill somebody then try to get coverage from a company. lol they'll toss you out.
You're comparing human lives with car insurance. Do you think its okay that people have to gamble with there health and livelihood being dependent on how much coverage they can afford for themselves or there families? Not everyone will be rich, not everyone can be rich, not everyone should be rich, be born lucky or get btfo, yep great system, America #1.
05-06-2017, 04:39 AM
-
#137
05-06-2017, 04:40 AM
-
#138
Originally Posted By N0rds⏩
"Rights" are only things you yourself are able to do freely (and that the government can't take away). Like having your own gun, your own opinion/voice, your own vote, etc.
Gettingsomeone else to perform serviceson you is not a "right".
police and firemen are slaves?"Rights" are only things you yourself are able to do freely (and that the government can't take away). Like having your own gun, your own opinion/voice, your own vote, etc.
Gettingsomeone else to perform serviceson you is not a "right".
05-06-2017, 04:46 AM
-
#139
No it is not a "right". anyone who says it is does not know what a right is. Healthcare requires the service of someone else. calling it a right means that everyone is entitled to it. what that means is that the healthcare provider (doctor) is FORCED to provide you with his services. Forcing someone else to provide you with a service only infringes on that persons real rights.
no such thing as a "right" that utterly demolishes the rights of someone else. this is not a hard concept to understand. Liberals just lack to mental fortitude to understand that providing healthcare requires a service from someone else. Liberals only want to claim to moral high ground on the surface so they can appear morally superior. It is for very selfish reasons and they dont actually care about anyone. Your morality is actually bottom of the barrel because you are advocating to have someone else FORCED into providing a service. Thats despicable
no such thing as a "right" that utterly demolishes the rights of someone else. this is not a hard concept to understand. Liberals just lack to mental fortitude to understand that providing healthcare requires a service from someone else. Liberals only want to claim to moral high ground on the surface so they can appear morally superior. It is for very selfish reasons and they dont actually care about anyone. Your morality is actually bottom of the barrel because you are advocating to have someone else FORCED into providing a service. Thats despicable
Certified 1200 ng/l T
05-06-2017, 04:48 AM
-
#140
- NotANun21
- One Of Our Top Posters!
-
- NotANun21
- One Of Our Top Posters!
- Join Date: Mar 2013
- Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Age: 35
- Posts: 22,904
- Rep Power: 24318
-
-
My belief is this:
If you a person is born, they should have a human right to be alive and to be in good health regardless of their genetics from birth until death... if they can be fixed they should be and it should be fully funded by the taxpayer BUT if they undergo lifesaving surgery, or life prolonging surgery then they have their pipes snipped and they can't have children from that point onwards without adopting. If they have open heart surgery for example while they're out cold they get their tubes cut, they know it's going to happen beforehand the option is either undergo both surgeries at once, or have no surgery (and probably die)
Nobody deserves to suffer because their parents passed on some chit, but while they don't deserve to suffer they can't get their problems fixed and then create a child with a chance at having those same problems and complications. Implimented then over time the population would get stronger and healthcare costs would go down.
edit: and for what it's worth, I've had a surgery that would qualify me to have my fertility taken away if this was true^
If you a person is born, they should have a human right to be alive and to be in good health regardless of their genetics from birth until death... if they can be fixed they should be and it should be fully funded by the taxpayer BUT if they undergo lifesaving surgery, or life prolonging surgery then they have their pipes snipped and they can't have children from that point onwards without adopting. If they have open heart surgery for example while they're out cold they get their tubes cut, they know it's going to happen beforehand the option is either undergo both surgeries at once, or have no surgery (and probably die)
Nobody deserves to suffer because their parents passed on some chit, but while they don't deserve to suffer they can't get their problems fixed and then create a child with a chance at having those same problems and complications. Implimented then over time the population would get stronger and healthcare costs would go down.
edit: and for what it's worth, I've had a surgery that would qualify me to have my fertility taken away if this was true^
If I laugh, I rep
(All of the posts made by this user account are to be considered satirical in nature and do not necessarily reflect the views, ideologies, opinions or intentions of any person or persons using the account)
05-06-2017, 04:54 AM
-
#141
- NotANun21
- One Of Our Top Posters!
-
- NotANun21
- One Of Our Top Posters!
- Join Date: Mar 2013
- Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Age: 35
- Posts: 22,904
- Rep Power: 24318
-
-
Originally Posted By JaxBrah⏩
Forced to provide you with services at cost, which is picked up by the governmentNo it is not a "right". anyone who says it is does not know what a right is. Healthcare requires the service of someone else. calling it a right means that everyone is entitled to it. what that means is that the healthcare provider (doctor) is FORCED to provide you with his services.Forcing someone else to provide you with a service only infringes on that persons real rights.
People aren't demanding that doctors treat them for free, they're demanding that the government foot the bill for healthcare and then split the cost between the whole country (which is actually what insurance is technically, it's splitting risk)
If I laugh, I rep
(All of the posts made by this user account are to be considered satirical in nature and do not necessarily reflect the views, ideologies, opinions or intentions of any person or persons using the account)
05-06-2017, 05:16 AM
-
#142
Originally Posted By US_Ranger⏩
So trueApparently not.
We can't even do it for our veterans.
Of course the population of the US isn't like smaller, more hegemonic nations. We have a large mix of people, some of which are very very very very very fat and drain resources.
I suggest to anyone who's curious about US health care to go spend a 12 hour shift in any emergency room in a decent sized city.
We can't even do it for our veterans.
Of course the population of the US isn't like smaller, more hegemonic nations. We have a large mix of people, some of which are very very very very very fat and drain resources.
I suggest to anyone who's curious about US health care to go spend a 12 hour shift in any emergency room in a decent sized city.
Official Supp. Misc Beer Crew
There's a taste of fear
When the henchmen call
Iron fist to tame them
Iron fist to claim it all
05-06-2017, 08:22 AM
-
#143
- faxanadu
- Registered User
-
- faxanadu
- Registered User
- Join Date: Sep 2009
- Location: Texas, United States
- Posts: 13,123
- Rep Power: 54413
-
-
Originally Posted By Bloggs24⏩
Yes they are. Bernie Sanders and his whole tribe say that.I'll forgive you if you haven't followed all my posts in this thread. I'm not arguing that Health Care should be made a constitutional right(in fact I dont think anyone has ever said it should be constitutional), im arguing that it should be a public service just like the police services, and the fire and rescue services. When taxes pay for health care as part of a single payer healthcare system,every single citizen is now a paying customer who would have the same rights to the health care services, as they already do with other public services.
Don't you think it is pretty niave of you to think that the government of all entities is going to give you equal and fair services? Do you honestly think the average citizen is going to get the same care as a celebrity, sports star, judge, governor, senator, or president? Our military gets health care ... do you think a private in the army gets the same quality of care that a general does?
You're comparing human lives with car insurance. Do you think its okay that people have to gamble with there health and livelihood being dependent on how much coverage they can afford for themselves or there families? Not everyone will be rich, not everyone can be rich, not everyone should be rich, be born lucky or get btfo, yep great system, America #1.
The underlying assumption you and most people like you keep making is that government is far more efficient/effective at taking care of people and their needs vs. private industry. You can say 'X' number of people are covered till the cows come home ... that is irrelevant. The only relevant thing is efficiency. Plain and simple:Let assume the population of the USA is 10 and they just all happen to need heart surgery
Goverment: All ten are covered but only 6 get surgery. The other 4 die because of government inefficiency/waste and lack of resources.
Private: Only 8 are covered but all 8 get surgery. The other 2 people die because of lack of resources.
"There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle." -Gym Jones
"The soul becomes dyed with the color of its thoughts." - Marcus Aurelius
?start=(#seconds)
TAMU Corps
Skydiving
Great Divide Mountain Bike Route (Jasper AB to Juarez MX) 2014
Appalachian Trail 2013
05-06-2017, 08:31 AM
-
#144
- faxanadu
- Registered User
-
- faxanadu
- Registered User
- Join Date: Sep 2009
- Location: Texas, United States
- Posts: 13,123
- Rep Power: 54413
-
-
Originally Posted By atlas24⏩
You don't have a "Right" to firemen and policemen. You do have a "Right" to make such a silly statement without the police coming after you.police and firemen are slaves?
"There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle." -Gym Jones
"The soul becomes dyed with the color of its thoughts." - Marcus Aurelius
?start=(#seconds)
TAMU Corps
Skydiving
Great Divide Mountain Bike Route (Jasper AB to Juarez MX) 2014
Appalachian Trail 2013
05-06-2017, 08:38 AM
-
#145
05-06-2017, 08:42 AM
-
#146
- northernlights7
- Banned
-
- northernlights7
- Banned
- Join Date: Jun 2013
- Posts: 24,527
- Rep Power: 24
-
-
I'm anything but a liberal, and have a libertarian and fiscally conservative style of thinking about 90%+ of things. Healthcare is a bit of an exception to me, though. It's 2017, medical knowledge and technology are 10,000x more advanced than they were even just 50 years ago (and rapidly continues to get better), yet our healthcare system is so unbelievably dogchit that large swaths of the population suffer from lousy or no insurance + fines? I don't give a fukk how "fiscally conservative" you are, you can't fukking tell me that that bs makes any sense. Especially considering that 90% of people who are quick to not give a fuk about the healthcare of others are vehemently pro-life (which I lean heavily towards myself). At a minimum, be consistent in the way you think, ffs.
To prove my libertarian/fiscally conservative thinking, I have an idea of how to fund better government provided healthcare coverage. First of all, the entire system needs a massive overhaul to imrpove competition among private insurers, which will drive government healthcare costs down as well. Secondly, how about we send ICE and swat teams into all sanctuary cities to deport all the illegals leaching off our whole system, stop taking in middle eastern/****lian/etc "refugees" who largely refuse to assimilate and just leach when they get here, and quit spending trillions on dumbass wars trying to police the entire world? Then we redirect all that money into taking care of our own people and infrastructure. Seems like a solid plan to me.
To prove my libertarian/fiscally conservative thinking, I have an idea of how to fund better government provided healthcare coverage. First of all, the entire system needs a massive overhaul to imrpove competition among private insurers, which will drive government healthcare costs down as well. Secondly, how about we send ICE and swat teams into all sanctuary cities to deport all the illegals leaching off our whole system, stop taking in middle eastern/****lian/etc "refugees" who largely refuse to assimilate and just leach when they get here, and quit spending trillions on dumbass wars trying to police the entire world? Then we redirect all that money into taking care of our own people and infrastructure. Seems like a solid plan to me.
05-06-2017, 08:44 AM
-
#147
- likeawashboard
- Registered User
-
- likeawashboard
- Registered User
- Join Date: Apr 2011
- Age: 35
- Posts: 8,005
- Rep Power: 18646
-
-
People who think health care is a right don't know what rights are.
05-06-2017, 08:54 AM
-
#148
- faxanadu
- Registered User
-
- faxanadu
- Registered User
- Join Date: Sep 2009
- Location: Texas, United States
- Posts: 13,123
- Rep Power: 54413
-
-
Originally Posted By NotANun21⏩
You do realize the government is an institution of people. To get those people to pay for something they must be taxed. Taxes come from labor. You're saying that if Jenny smoked her entire life and now has lung cancer ... I, the DOCTOR, and EVERYONE ELSE have to perform labor to fix her.Forced to provide you with services at cost,which is picked up by the government
People aren't demanding that doctors treat them for free, they're demanding that the government foot the bill for healthcare and then split the cost between the whole country (which is actually what insurance is technically, it's splitting risk)
People aren't demanding that doctors treat them for free, they're demanding that the government foot the bill for healthcare and then split the cost between the whole country (which is actually what insurance is technically, it's splitting risk)
Last I looked something like 40% of the UK budget goes to health care. In the USA the average middle class person effectively pays about 40% of their income in taxes. That is roughly 5 months of labor. If 40% of that is health care ... that's 2 months of labor from each tax payer.
Lets see it even worse. Only about half the USA population really pays taxes. So in your system, 150 million people will have to labor 2 months a year for the other 150 million people. It is a really nice disguise for something that is in essence slavery or at minimum indefinate indentured servitude.
"There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle." -Gym Jones
"The soul becomes dyed with the color of its thoughts." - Marcus Aurelius
?start=(#seconds)
TAMU Corps
Skydiving
Great Divide Mountain Bike Route (Jasper AB to Juarez MX) 2014
Appalachian Trail 2013
05-06-2017, 09:02 AM
-
#149
- faxanadu
- Registered User
-
- faxanadu
- Registered User
- Join Date: Sep 2009
- Location: Texas, United States
- Posts: 13,123
- Rep Power: 54413
-
-
Originally Posted By northernlights7⏩
If government simply stayed out health care would cost 5 times less.I'm anything but a liberal, and have a libertarian and fiscally conservative style of thinking about 90%+ of things. Healthcare is a bit of an exception to me, though. It's 2017, medical knowledge and technology are 10,000x more advanced than they were even just 50 years ago (and rapidly continues to get better), yet our healthcare system is so unbelievably dogchit that large swaths of the population suffer from lousy or no insurance + fines? I don't give a fukk how "fiscally conservative" you are, you can't fukking tell me that that bs makes any sense. Especially considering that 90% of people who are quick to not give a fuk about the healthcare of others are vehemently pro-life (which I lean heavily towards myself). At a minimum, be consistent in the way you think, ffs.
To prove my libertarian/fiscally conservative thinking, I have an idea of how to fund better government provided healthcare coverage. First of all, the entire system needs a massive overhaul to imrpove competition among private insurers, which will drive government healthcare costs down as well. Secondly, how about we send ICE and swat teams into all sanctuary cities to deport all the illegals leaching off our whole system, stop taking in middle eastern/****lian/etc "refugees" who largely refuse to assimilate and just leach when they get here, and quit spending trillions on dumbass wars trying to police the entire world? Then we redirect all that money into taking care of our own people and infrastructure. Seems like a solid plan to me.
To prove my libertarian/fiscally conservative thinking, I have an idea of how to fund better government provided healthcare coverage. First of all, the entire system needs a massive overhaul to imrpove competition among private insurers, which will drive government healthcare costs down as well. Secondly, how about we send ICE and swat teams into all sanctuary cities to deport all the illegals leaching off our whole system, stop taking in middle eastern/****lian/etc "refugees" who largely refuse to assimilate and just leach when they get here, and quit spending trillions on dumbass wars trying to police the entire world? Then we redirect all that money into taking care of our own people and infrastructure. Seems like a solid plan to me.
The mass divergence in the graph starts when Medicaid went in to effect (1965) and increases even more after Medicare went into effect (1976). Of course for a long ass time now ... the government has been artificially limiting the supply of doctors.
"There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle." -Gym Jones
"The soul becomes dyed with the color of its thoughts." - Marcus Aurelius
?start=(#seconds)
TAMU Corps
Skydiving
Great Divide Mountain Bike Route (Jasper AB to Juarez MX) 2014
Appalachian Trail 2013
05-06-2017, 03:01 PM
-
#150
- BrocepCurls
- Banned
-
- BrocepCurls
- Banned
- Join Date: Apr 2010
- Posts: 15,180
- Rep Power: 0
-
-
Originally Posted By vt2medellin⏩
So again, are policeman, soldiers, judges and prison guards slaves, or not?Short answer: yes
I believe the proper function of the federal government is national defense, police force, court system, jails, etc. Parks, roads, bridges and schools should all be handled privately.
I believe the proper function of the federal government is national defense, police force, court system, jails, etc. Parks, roads, bridges and schools should all be handled privately.
Bookmarks
-
- Digg
-
- del.icio.us
-
- StumbleUpon
-
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts