DEBT SPIRAL: Interest costs on U.S. debt to exceed economic growth by 2045💸💸💸

Econ4every1 said:

How did that work out? Do you think Lift and Uber deliver the same or better product as the same or lower price?

Click to expand...

It's not even comparable. Uber is simply awesome. It's about half the price of what cabs used to charge and every driver I've spoken to likes the job and likes being able to work whenever they want.

Econ4every1 said:

The Uber Files leak confirmed: Uber pursued regulatory arbitrage by ignoring laws, launching operations in defiance of local authorities, and then using public demand and elite opinion to rewrite the rules in its favor.

Click to expand...

Good. The "authorities" can go f themselves.

Econ4every1 said:

Look, I have no illusions that government is flawed, seriously flawed. it is increasingly captured by the wealthy, but the idea that turning it over to the wealthy is the solution? /facepalm.

Click to expand...

Like many on the left, you simply do not understand what government is.

Econ4every1 said:

I won't disagree. People need to think of healthcare as something that has a cost and that they consume. They need to be incentivized to shop for it rather than it being a fixed cost that they learn when they get the bill.

Click to expand...

Yes.

Econ4every1 said:

I doubt either of us likes the system we have, but if the prices are what the market will bear, the wealthy will disproportionally consume and control it and outcomes will steeply favor the top 1/3 of Americans.

Click to expand...

"Prices are what the market will bear" assumes no competition, innovation, or charitable services, all of which drive prices down and access up.

Furthermore, markets don't always favor the top - they often create abundance and drive down costs (e.g., cell phones, air travel, TVs, lasik). In some sectors, the bottom 2/3 now has access to what was once only available to the elites.

You're an economist. You should want prices to reflect what the market will bear - it's how resources get allocated efficiently. What's the alternative? Price controls, shortages, and rationing?

Econ4every1 said:

Let me ask you a very simple question. If you don't answer it, my only response from this point forward will be to ask again.

Click to expand...

No need for that. If you consistently answer my questions, I'll answer yours.

Econ4every1 said:

If a little girl is sick and will die without treatment, nothing earth shatteringly expensive but more than the average family could hope to afford and lower class families absolutely could not afford, should that child die if they cannot pay?

And please, avoid the assumption that donations will fill the gap. If they could they'd be doing it now for the millions of people, including children that don't have healthcare today.

So what's it going to be, let children die to maintain your free market utopia or steal money from "other people" so this child and children like her can live?

Click to expand...

This isn’t an argument for socialized medicine, it’s an argument for a limited safety net in a largely free market system. We can let markets drive innovation, efficiency, and choice, while still stepping in to protect those who slip through the cracks, like a sick child with no means to pay.

Do you support food stamps or government-run grocery stores? Section 8 vouchers or government housing projects? Socialism is always a loser for society.

But anyway, it's generally a bad idea to make laws, or policies based on edge cases. And don't forget that under a government-run healthcare system, people die on waiting lists:

aociswundumho said:

It's about half the price of what cabs used to charge and every driver I've spoken to likes the job and likes being able to work whenever they want.

Click to expand...

Only in a world where up is down, right is left and more expensive costs less.

aociswundumho said:

Good. The "authorities" can go f themselves.

Click to expand...

Ahhh, the quiet part out loud.

aociswundumho said:

Like many on the left, you simply do not understand what government is.

Click to expand...

Touché.

aociswundumho said:

You're an economist. You should want prices to reflect what the market will bear

Click to expand...

You misunderstand. I'm saying that commodifying essentials like food, water and heath, things that are essential for life create opportunities for the wealthy to control these resources and exploit people.

Exploitation of human beings to extract wealth based on essential human needs is, besides unethical and immoral, it's inefficient (as an economist).

aociswundumho said:

This isn’t an argument for socialized medicine

Click to expand...

You said you'd want to save the girl, whose money are you going to steal (your philosophy, not mine) to save her?

Econ4every1 said:

You misunderstand. I'm saying that commodifying essentials like food, water and heath, things that are essential for life create opportunities for the wealthy to control these resources and exploit people.

Click to expand...

The alternative to the market is the state. Do you really want the state to control the means of production regarding food?

Econ4every1 said:

Exploitation of human beings to extract wealth based on essential human needs is, besides unethical and immoral, it's inefficient (as an economist).

Click to expand...

1) What counts as "exploitation"? Is charging for the food you produced exploitative?

2) An economist would ask how this "exploitation" leads to inefficiency. Is there deadweight loss? Resource misallocation? Lower productivity?

Econ4every1 said:

You said you'd want to save the girl, whose money are you going to steal (your philosophy, not mine) to save her?

Click to expand...

I gave you an option regarding how the girl could be saved without ruining healthcare by putting it in the hands of the filthy rotten state.

You're not taking any moral high ground here. As we sit here and write, there are children in Africa who are dying of disease and starving to death, yet how much of your own personal money have you spent saving any of them? Zero.

Instead you would rather spend the money on luxuries for yourself and your family. Based on your actions, you are indifferent to dying children in Africa. I believe you economists call that "revealed preference".

aociswundumho said:

The alternative to the market is the state. Do you really want the state to control the means of production regarding food?

Click to expand...

That's a false dichotomy.

I want the state to manage healthcare without the emphasis on short term profit. The government can utilize the private sector to supply healthcare, but structure it in a way that does not prioritize profit over outcomes.

One thing that should end is linking healthcare to specific jobs. IIRC Germany has a half dozen or so national plans. People can choose which plan they want, but once they choose they have to stay with the plan for some number of years.

But, there are TONS of other improvements that could be implemented having to do with policy and process.

As far as food goes. I don't think we need the government controlling it's creation, but limiting how much a handful of companies can control food production.

aociswundumho said:

1) What counts as "exploitation"? Is charging for the food you produced exploitative?

Click to expand...

You're smarter than that, or you are insulting my intelligence, either way, you need to ask better questions.

aociswundumho said:

2) An economist would ask how this "exploitation" leads to inefficiency.

Click to expand...

Regulation prevents companies and individuals form outright lying about what their product can do.

Here is an example of a product that exploits it's customers

The product not only does not live up to a single one of it's claims, people can avoid seeking real medical treatment.

This it inefficient at a societal level for two reasons.

The money spent does not provide any of benefits it claims, but it also take money from people, many of whom are less educated and likely poorer and therefore need the money spent on products like this.

The promise of solving heath issues in particular can delay treatment for real issues that people have think that products like the one in the link above will help them.

Avoiding treatment to try holistic products or those "as seen on TV", take money but very rarely provide the benefits they promise.

That results in higher long term heath costs of the individual, less money to address their health issue and socializes the costs in the form of lost productivity, lower standards of living, decreasing money of those that tend to need it most and lining the pockets of unscrupulous, unethical and immoral entrepreneurs who realize that it's easier and more profitable to create a cheep bad product and an expensive marketing campaign than it to to work hard to develop a good product.

aociswundumho said:

I gave you an option regarding how the girl could be saved without ruining healthcare by putting it in the hands of the filthy rotten state.

Click to expand...

This is not an option;

aociswundumho said:

We can let markets drive innovation, efficiency, and choice, while still stepping in to protect those who slip through the cracks, like a sick child with no means to pay.

Click to expand...

Markets, operating without strong societal and cultural counterbalances (which arguably are not prominent in the US), tend towards a "race to the bottom." This occurs when the primary drive is to minimize costs in product creation while maximizing profits.

While it's true that many companies may not operate this way, it's a well-documented aspect of human behavior, supported by numerous behavioral studies: absent sufficient disincentives, individuals are prone to dishonest practices. When such behavior goes unchecked and unpunished, two outcomes are common: 1) others adopt similar dishonest tactics, rationalizing their actions by pointing to those who have already cheated successfully, or 2) individuals disengage and refuse to participate or contribute.

This dynamic creates societal inefficiency. This is the inherent challenge in purely market-driven economies; they often prioritize immediate financial gain over broader social well-being and efficiency.

Econ4every1 said:

Markets, operating without strong societal and cultural counterbalances (which arguably are not prominent in the US), tend towards a "race to the bottom." This occurs when the primary drive is to minimize costs in product creation while maximizing profits.

Click to expand...

1) Watches are unregulated. Explain how the watch market suffers from this so-called “race to the bottom.” Spoiler: it doesn’t. In fact, it offers everything from $10 timepieces to $10,000 heirlooms, driven by consumer preference—not a race to cheapness.

2) Markets don’t only compete on price. They also compete on innovation, quality, brand loyalty, and service. The assumption that cost-cutting is the dominant or only force ignores how markets actually function.

3) The profit motive is not a bug - it’s a feature. Without it, you'd be living in a mud hut dressed in rags, hoping the central planner doesn’t forget your food ration. The profit incentive drives efficiency, improves quality, and lowers costs - all to the benefit of the consumer.

aociswundumho said:

Watches are unregulated

Click to expand...

Sorry, but that's a dumb idea. Otherwise your question has a simple response, not all markets are dominated the same. Plus, who needs a watch? Not the kind of market that would be worthwhile to dominate.

Now take something like glasses.

aociswundumho said:

Markets don’t only compete on price.

Click to expand...

Fair markets.

aociswundumho said:

The profit motive is not a bug - it’s a feature.

Click to expand...

Again, no problem with competition, but when certain companies or investor groups can limit competition though anti competitive practices (something that increasing), you get less "features" and more "bugs".

Anecdotally, I've worked for multi billion dollar technology companies who dominated in their space and seen first hand how they engaged in anti competitive practices like selling millions of dollars of product at a loss to prevent the competition from making sales in order to harm the other company, or buy up the coopetition, not to acquire technology to improve the company, but rather to prevent competition. As soon as they are acquired they are quickly broken up and the pieces are sold off.