Explaining Why Federal Deficits Are Needed[W:5330]

[Kushinator]

And its a fact that a single payer system could reduce costs because monopolies benefit from efficiency due to economy of scale.

Single payer health care is monopsony... not monopoly.

:lol:

Carry on!

 

[Moderate Right]

And the right's argument about every poor person is that they got that way by making poor choices. You guys want all the poor people to stay poor so that only the Rockefellers and Carnegies will be left, earning more money than they do now and they can stick it to everyone else ... yada yada yada

I'm not a one percenter. You want to put me and my employees out of business just because of the one percenters.

 

[Critter7r]

I'm not a one percenter. You want to put me and my employees out of business just because of the one percenters.

No. I want to raise MW to about $10/hr and then index it to inflation.

 

[Moderate Right]

Sucks, doesn't it?

Daniel is just the reverse of James. They both have nothing but babbling extremist incoherent ramblings repeated over and over but even James can make arguments back and forth every once in a while and sometimes acknowledges that the other side has made an argument. Daniel just continually rambles without even acknowledging that another poster even said anything at all. As much as I disagree with several of you lefties on here at least you have some sort of acknowledgement that posters on the other side said something. Even though John and I have our falling outs, he hasn't been bad enough for me to put on ignore.

 

[pinqy]

Hmmm



Kushinator stated that monopolies can set prices. And I pointed out that they don't "set" the price because demand is still the largest factor.

That demand is the largest factor doesn't mean the monopolist doesn't set the price. The monopolist will set quantity where marginal cost=marginal demand, and sets price where that quantity lies on the aggregate demand curve. In perfect competition, the firm cannot influence price, but produces at the quantity where its marginal cost = price.

Exactly reality is different.. and this discussion evolved from a discussion of the real world issue of single payer healthcare. And its a fact that a single payer system could reduce costs because monopolies benefit from efficiency due to economy of scale.

Monopolies "can" benefit from economies of scale. However, if they become too large, they can suffer from diseconomies of scale. Which I suspect would be the case for a single payer system in the U.S.

then you went ballistic on how this was wrong...

I didn't go ballistic. You were wrong in stating that a firm will produce more in a monopoly.

I'll tell you what.. go call these folks and argue they are wrong:

Why do monopolies occur in industries with economies of scale? | Economics Help

Why would I? They're not wrong. IF economies of scale apply (and the firm is within that range), then it will be more efficient, though not necessarily produce more. But it's not efficient because it's a monopoly, but because it enjoys economies of scale.

no you didn't need to say it... its why when you brought up "pure/perfect competition".. it was completely invalid to the real world discussion on the merits/problems with single payer healthcare.

But you dismissed the idea of a firm being a price taker at all. You didn't specify "in the real world." If you knew that I was talking theoretically, then you should either have continued theoretically or stated that the reality was different.

But even in the real world, many firms that face competition and strong substitutes, are price takers. Which is why, with some exceptions, gas prices in an area are usually about the same. Coke and Pepsi will almost always cost about the same. Etc.

 

[jaeger19]

Well, if you want to be general about it in order to give yourself wiggle room within the parameters of the facts, then I suppose you're right. But saying it will affect small business if taxes are raised on income above $250K is a bit misleading since most firms don't make in excess of that, and only a handful of firms in three sectors out of more than a dozen actually do. Remember, the average income is what is listed on the link. Meaning, there are firms that make less than that and thus wouldn't be subject to any tax increase.
?

Look at you wiggle. So now the facts are that it WILL affect small businesses. well lookee there. Yet again.. I am right.

Oh and whats your argument "but it won't be that big?".

too funny.

And you are wrong.. because it still affects firms that make less than 250,000 especially depending on how much of a tax increase it is. And that's because if a business owner who makes less than 250,000 is contemplating an expansion that will increase his income over that 250,000 mark... he will have to evaluate whether the after tax reward is large enough to justify the risk

You're actually not right about that. Outsourcing started in the early 1970's, after Nixon normalized relations with China. Once he did, he and Gerald Ford along with William F. Buckley and the Conservatives urged American businesses to open shop in China. And yes, wages were better in 1981 than today. But what happened to wages since 1981, the start of trickle-down? They have stagnated. Why do you think that is?

Well.. thanks for pointing out that my premise was actually more right than I thought. and wages began to go down once companies started outsourcing. (decreasing wage pressure)...

Why have wages stagnated? Well it for certainly has NOTHING whatsoever to do with "trickle down".

Lets see what does it have to do with?

Failure of the American education system to keep ahead of competitor countries.
Failure to enforce immigration laws and thus illegal immigration has decreased wage pressure among the poor and middle class.
Anti union legislation that has decreased collective bargaining.
Failure to invest in meaningful infrastructure and technology.

Basically.. the US has rested on its laurels and failed to respond effectively in a global marketplace.

 

[Moderate Right]

No. I want to raise MW to about $10/hr and then index it to inflation.

Then you should repeatedly say that instead of supporting all the lefties on here who spout off about more and you should call them out on it as being wrong. It's hard to keep the playing field straight, especially when you have Hillary telling everyone that she would like $12 per hour and that $15 would be bad for business and then when a journalist asks her if a Democratic congress sent her a bill for $15 as president, would she sign it, and Hillary says, "Sure". Well, whatever happened to anything over $12 would be bad for business?

 

[jaeger19]

That demand is the largest factor doesn't mean the monopolist doesn't set the price. The monopolist will set quantity where marginal cost=marginal demand, and sets price where that quantity lies on the aggregate demand curve. In perfect competition, the firm cannot influence price, but produces at the quantity where its marginal cost = price.
.

Yes it actually does... because "setting" a price implies that they can charge what they wish regardless of supply and demand.. and that's simply not true.

Perfect competition simply doesn't exist.

Monopolies "can" benefit from economies of scale. However, if they become too large, they can suffer from diseconomies of scale. Which I suspect would be the case for a single payer system in the U.S.

good.. you have finally admitted I am correct.

so what the heck are you arguing with me for?

I didn't go ballistic. You were wrong in stating that a firm will produce more in a monopoly.

No I am not. In the real world. the monopoly needs to keep it marketshare.. or it will lose it if it cannot keep up with demand.

And the whole point of economy of scale is the ability to produce more with less per unit cost (more efficiency)

Why would I? They're not wrong. IF economies of scale apply (and the firm is within that range), then it will be more efficient, though not necessarily produce more. But it's not efficient because it's a monopoly, but because it enjoys economies of scale.

Okay.. that's funny. Whatever makes you feel better.

But you dismissed the idea of a firm being a price taker at all. You didn't specify "in the real world." If you knew that I was talking theoretically, then you should either have continued theoretically or stated that the reality was different.

excuse me.. but you butted into a debate which was about the real world and single payer healthcare.

 

[Critter7r]

Then you should repeatedly say that

I have repeatedly said that.

... instead of supporting all the lefties on here who spout off about more and you should call them out on it as being wrong.

Well, I don't really think they're "wrong", just over-reaching.

 

[danielpalos]

I'm not a one percenter. You want to put me and my employees out of business just because of the one percenters.

My goode, Capitalist sir,

why are you complaining about any lack of capital opportunities, when you actually have capital? Mr. Ford too the "common offense" to his competition by doubling autoworker wages, not minimum wages.

Why complain about the least wealthy when they complain about a similar lack of capital, opportunities?

 

[danielpalos]

Daniel is just the reverse of James. They both have nothing but babbling extremist incoherent ramblings repeated over and over but even James can make arguments back and forth every once in a while and sometimes acknowledges that the other side has made an argument. Daniel just continually rambles without even acknowledging that another poster even said anything at all. As much as I disagree with several of you lefties on here at least you have some sort of acknowledgement that posters on the other side said something. Even though John and I have our falling outs, he hasn't been bad enough for me to put on ignore.

You are simply clueless and Causeless; thank you for admitting it in the public domain.

Politics is for adults, dear.

 

[danielpalos]

Then you should repeatedly say that instead of supporting all the lefties on here who spout off about more and you should call them out on it as being wrong. It's hard to keep the playing field straight, especially when you have Hillary telling everyone that she would like $12 per hour and that $15 would be bad for business and then when a journalist asks her if a Democratic congress sent her a bill for $15 as president, would she sign it, and Hillary says, "Sure". Well, whatever happened to anything over $12 would be bad for business?

Why does the fantastical right wing whine about every little Thing? Even chicken little was not any worse.

Is micromanaging our tax codes not a favorite hobby of our legislators?

why not raise the minimum wage to fifteen dollars an hour and simply give tax credits or preferences to mitigate the costs to small business; they are already used to tax holidays.

It would be a more effective stimulus for our economy.

 

[jaeger19]

Single payer health care is monopsony... not monopoly.

:lol:

Carry on!

actually.. .its BOTH.

:lol:

Carry on.

 

[Incisor]

Please. Listen.. we understand your method. You shot your mouth off.. and have nothing behind it except your ideology. I provide logic and facts and experience which blows your argument out of the water.. and you try to attack my experience.

Going full Dunning-Kruger on me?

 

[Incisor]

In other words, you want to have a dishonest advantage

How do you mean? I want to have an honest conversation and debate. I can't have that if one side submits anecdotes as their primary source of support for their positions.

 

[Kushinator]

actually.. .its BOTH.

Single payer is monopsony. You weren't aware of this discrepancy until i pointed it out.

Sorry, you fail once again!

 

[jaeger19]

That is a ridiculous argument. I'm not asking any help from the government except to leave me alone so that I can make a living. I'm not a one percenter, not even close, not even in the same ballpark. There are many, many, many, small businesses who cannot afford to pay their employees $12 or $15 per hour. You act as if it were only me. Millions of other businesses are in different types of businesses that charge much more for their products and services. There are millions who are not in those types of businesses, such as myself. If I had to pay even just $12 per hour that would increase my gross payroll $65,000 per year, plus an additional $5,000 per year in increased payroll taxes which also come out of my pocket. A raise to $15 per hour would increase my gross payroll $143,000 per year, plus an additional $11,000 per year in payroll taxes. I do far better than than most mom and pop small businesses but I cannot afford $70,000 per year in increased costs and I don't even earn $154,000 per year if minimum wage went up to $15 per hour. Both would put me out of business but you liberals think we are all just bad business people because we don't make over $250,000 per year in order to be able to absorb such large increases. The trouble with you guys is you have no clue about running a business. All you know is the biased liberal talking points.

here is what the left and the right really don't get.

The reality is that much of regulation/taxes etc.. are the result of lobbying by the one percenters. those with the gold.. make the rules.

So lets say we take you. now as a small business.. you are definitely hurt more by a minimum wage increase.. then say your much bigger competitor that's already because of size more efficient. AND because of size has more access to capital to do things such as automate.

So.. when the left says "we need to raise minimum wage and that will help the poor"... what really happens.. is that it hurts you.. while not hurting the one percent owner hardly at all. So you go out of business.. and he snaps up your marketshare.

and now the one percent is wealthier.. and the middle class suffers

 

[jaeger19]

Single payer is monopsony. You weren't aware of this discrepancy until i pointed it out.

Sorry, you fail once again!

Sorry.. you fail once again.

Single payer IS a monopsony.. in other words it is the sole buyer of healthcare services (from providers like me).

However it is ALSO a monopoly.. because its the sole supplier of healthcare insurance to the public..

You sir.. are too funny.

 

[jaeger19]

How do you mean? I want to have an honest conversation and debate. I can't have that if one side submits anecdotes as their primary source of support for their positions.

And neither can you have an honest conversation and debate if all you submit is opinions not based on fact.. as you do.

 

[jaeger19]

Going full Dunning-Kruger on me?

Nope.. just demonstrating your psychological projection.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Sorry.. you fail once again.

Single payer IS a monopsony.. in other words it is the sole buyer of healthcare services (from providers like me).

However it is ALSO a monopoly.. because its the sole supplier of healthcare insurance to the public..

You sir.. are too funny.

It's not a monopoly, because the govt. wouldn't be selling healthcare insurance, just providing it.

Further, monopolists are price-setters; they can set the price where they want, and, as always, they want to set it at the most profitable point. But that most profitable point in a monopoly is determined far differently than the most profitable point in a competitive environment.

Let this one go, Jaeger, you are on the losing end of it. Kush is correct, and Pinqy is correct.

 

[jaeger19]

It's not a monopoly, because the govt. wouldn't be selling healthcare insurance, just providing it.

Further, monopolists are price-setters; they can set the price where they want, and, as always, they want to set it at the most profitable point. But that most profitable point in a monopoly is determined far differently than the most profitable point in a competitive environment.

Let this one go, Jaeger, you are on the losing end of it. Kush is correct, and Pinqy is correct.

You guys are too funny.

mo·nop·o·ly

/məˈnäpəlē/


noun

noun: monopoly; plural noun: monopolies; noun: Monopoly



the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service.

And we have already determined that monopolies cannot set the price where they want regardless of demand.

sorry John.. but once again.. Jaeger is correct.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

You guys are too funny.



And we have already determined that monopolies cannot set the price where they want regardless of demand.

That "regardless of demand" bit makes your argument a strawman. It's not part of the definition of monopoly, and nobody ever claimed that it was.

sorry John.. but once again.. Jaeger is correct.

So how much will the government be charging us for that single-payer insurance?

 

[jaeger19]

That "regardless of demand" bit makes your argument a strawman. It's not part of the definition of monopoly, and nobody ever claimed that it was.



So how much will the government be charging us for that single-payer insurance?

\


nope.. did not make it a strawman.

and I don't know how much the government will increase taxes for that single payer insurance.

What I do know however is that they will have a monopoly in the supply of that insurance. Which is.. wait for it.. a monopoly.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

\


nope.. did not make it a strawman.

and I don't know how much the government will increase taxes for that single payer insurance.

What I do know however is that they will have a monopoly in the supply of that insurance. Which is.. wait for it.. a monopoly.

So private insurance is going to be outlawed, then?