DEBT SPIRAL: Interest costs on U.S. debt to exceed economic growth by 2045💸💸💸 (1 Viewer)

[aociswundumho]

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

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.

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.

Good. The "authorities" can go f themselves.

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.

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

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.

Yes.

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.

"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?

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.

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

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?

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:

15,474 Canadians Died Waiting for Health Care in 2023-24 - SecondStreet.Org

New research from SecondStreet.org shows that waiting list deaths are at a five-year high in Canada.

secondstreet.org

 

[Econ4every1]

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.

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

NYC Uber rides most expensive in the U.S., study finds

An Uber ride in New York City will set you back more than any other city in the U.S. according to a new study, but fares in Nashville are not much cheaper.

www.foxbusiness.com

"Uber Has Higher Prices and Worse Service Than the Taxi Industry Had Ten Years Ago” - ProMarket

Following the Uber Files leaks, transportation expert Hubert Horan explains why Uber is “hopelessly uneconomic” and how its engagement with policymakers and academics aided its relentless pursuit of growth. Earlier this month, The Guardian and the International Consortium of Investigative...

www.promarket.org

Uber Takes Us for a Ride

Data shows Uber cries wolf about driver pay, while jacking up fares and paying off Wall St.

www.powerswitchaction.org

Good. The "authorities" can go f themselves.

Ahhh, the quiet part out loud.

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

Touché.

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

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).

This isn’t an argument for socialized medicine

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

 

[aociswundumho]

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.

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

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

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?

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

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".

 

[Econ4every1]

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

 

[Econ4every1]

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.

This is not an option;

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.

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.