The Fatal Flaw of Socialism

[Lakryte]

Of course it is. It's my opinion. In what way is your opinion not subjective?

Both our opinions of McDonalds and those companies are subjective, yes...

Plenty of people are obese and suffering Type 2 diabetes through believing all the advertising that those (and plenty of other) companies tell them about their products. Just because someone thinks something is worth buying doesn't mean it actually is. The entire advertising industry is predicated on persuading someone to do something that they had no intention of doing otherwise. Selling unhealthy, unethically produced, unsustainable products is included in that mission.

Yet the above is you trying to say that McDonalds and these companies are objectively bad. If someone things something is worth buying to an individual, then do that individual it is worth buying. People are aware that McDonalds is unhealthy. But they still buy it, because regardless to them it is worth it. There is no objective judgement you can make on what is worth buying, which is exactly what you are trying to do.

 

[head of joaquin]

Did you really miss the part where I'm a pragmatarian? Again, I support allowing taxpayers to choose where their taxes go. If public healthcare is truly superior, then I'm sure that taxpayers would give their taxes (positive feedback) to public healthcare.



Again, I'm not a libertarian so your well-rehearsed arguments are completely irrelevant. I have not once argued that the private sector is better than the public sector at supplying anything. So please stop regurgitating your anti-libertarian rhetoric.



The problem we're dealing with is that the government does not know how much of any public good to supply. I have no problem assuming that we need public healthcare...but how in the world can the government possibly know how much public healthcare to supply? Clearly it's detrimental if there's a shortage of public healthcare...but it's also detrimental if there's a surplus as well. If there are too many doctors then there's invariably going to be a shortage of scientists, engineers, etc.

The solution is simply to allow taxpayers to choose where their taxes go. Why? Because taxpayers wouldn't want there to be a shortage of doctors. So if they have to pay taxes anyways, and assuming the government is superior at providing healthcare, then the amount of money that taxpayers give to public healthcare will be the optimal amount of money...and we'll have an optimal amount of doctors.

So please stop spewing your anti-libertarian arguments at me. I'm not a libertarian. I'm a pragmatarian. I'm fine with the government as long as taxpayers are allowed to use their taxes to reveal what the actual demand for public goods is. Without knowing what the actual demand for public goods is...it's impossible for the government to supply the optimal amount of public goods. This is the problem that you haven't addressed. It's basic supply and demand.

Already rebutted. Single payer systems work better than for profit systems. So you lose. Regulated utilities work better than the water wars of the 19th century. So you lose.

I suppose you'll just keep ignoring the empirical data, but that's what I expect from market evangelists.

 

[Lakryte]

Yep, but market flaws exist, such as in heath care, and in those cases government can allocate "better", depending on what outcome we want.

If you want better public health, single payer systems are empirically superior to our for profit system. If you want to make a lot of money for rich people, then our system is "better". So first you have to decide what the goal is, and there is no unitary goal of allocating resources.

What market flaws exist in US healthcare?

 

[Xerographica]

I wrote to err on the side of individual choice. Which coincides with your notion of taxpayers having individual choice. I don't necessarily agree with you on that specific instance, but in general, what I wrote looks consistent with your approach, not throwing out the baby..

Right, there's certainly quite a bit of overlap in our perspectives on the topic...so I'm interested in hearing you flesh out your hesitation regarding taxpayers shopping for themselves in the public sector.

Of course not. Some may say it's not really our job to know where our tax dollars go, "that's not how taxes work" the proclaim with ignorant indignity.
The issue is that when you dig deep enough, even people involved may not know, there are certainly very, very few checks and balances, transparency, market incentives, etc., regardless of if they know where it goes, etc. If at the end of the day your taxes go to line someone's pockets, or to get someone elected, even if they know where it goes it's entirely indefensible.

Not many things strike me as really scary about our current system (thankfully), but the idea that people on this forum (any group to be fair) would be making routine decisions about what I could own, or how much value my work was worth, would be enough to make it time to shop for a better government/society.

I'm not quite sure if you're talking about the current system or a pragmatarian system. Right now in the private sector...other people decide how much your work is worth. That's why markets work. But in the public sector...we don't decide how much Obama's work is worth. Taxpayers don't get to decide how much of their taxes they give to the White House or Congress or any other government organization. Congress is in charge of deciding how much funds are given to each government organization. I think it would be an improvement to hand the power of the purse over to taxpayers. Do you disagree?

 

[head of joaquin]

What market flaws exist in US healthcare?

Lack of price elasticity. Information disparities between providers and consumer (of both health care and insurance). The need for everybody to have it in order for it to work (PUBLIC health is public -- one sick person who doesn't get care can make a lot of other people sick). A couple more.

Haven't you bothered to look up this well-researched area?

 

[Xerographica]

Already rebutted. Single payer systems work better than for profit systems. So you lose. Regulated utilities work better than the water wars of the 19th century. So you lose.

I suppose you'll just keep ignoring the empirical data, but that's what I expect from market evangelists.

You're rebutting arguments that I never made. Can you please quote me where I said we should kick public healthcare over to the private sector? Again and again and again...I'm not a libertarian. I'm a pragmatarian. I'm perfectly fine with healthcare being in the public sector...as long as taxpayers can choose where their taxes go. Why do I want taxpayers to choose where their taxes go? Because their spending decisions will reveal the true demand for public goods. Without the true demand for public goods, it's impossible for the government to supply the optimal amount of public goods.

What you keep ignoring is my request to explain how the government can supply the optimal quantity of public healthcare when it doesn't know what the actual demand for healthcare is. Failure to understand basic concepts such as supply and demand is what I expect from liberals.

 

[Lakryte]

Lack of price elasticity. Information disparities between providers and consumer (of both health care and insurance). The need for everybody to have it in order for it to work (PUBLIC health is public -- one sick person who doesn't get care can make a lot of other people sick). A couple more.

Haven't you bothered to look up this well-researched area?

Ok. And how does the free market cause those problems, exactly?

 

[head of joaquin]

You're rebutting arguments that I never made. Can you please quote me where I said we should kick public healthcare over to the private sector? Again and again and again...I'm not a libertarian. I'm a pragmatarian. I'm perfectly fine with healthcare being in the public sector...as long as taxpayers can choose where their taxes go. Why do I want taxpayers to choose where their taxes go? Because their spending decisions will reveal the true demand for public goods. Without the true demand for public goods, it's impossible for the government to supply the optimal amount of public goods.

What you keep ignoring is my request to explain how the government can supply the optimal quantity of public healthcare when it doesn't know what the actual demand for healthcare is. Failure to understand basic concepts such as supply and demand is what I expect from liberals.

Easy. For profit insurance is a failure for well known reasons (I can't keep repeating them). The only option is single payer.

 

[head of joaquin]

Ok. And how does the free market cause those problems, exactly?

First, there's no such thing as a free market. I take it you mean a market regulated to give advantages to owner of capital and not workers.

Second, I told you how: markets have well known flaws. Health care and health insurance is rife for them. Don't blame me that markets can, in certain situations and without certain regulation, fail and produce inferior results. I'm just telling you what the data says.

 

[Xerographica]

Easy. For profit insurance is a failure for well known reasons (I can't keep repeating them). The only option is single payer.

And where I have argued in favor of for-profit insurance?

 

[head of joaquin]

And where I have argued in favor of for-profit insurance?

By proposing a tax system that can't work to fund public health care.

 

[Lakryte]

First, there's no such thing as a free market. I take it you mean a market regulated to give advantages to owner of capital and not workers.

No, I mean a free market, defined as a market in which each exchange is undertaken as a voluntary agreement between two people or between groups of people represented by agents. No regulations giving advantages to anyone. The degree to which an economic system deviates from this ideal is the degree to which it is not a free market.

Second, I told you how: markets have well known flaws. Health care and health insurance is rife for them. Don't blame me that markets can, in certain situations and without certain regulation, fail and produce inferior results. I'm just telling you what the data says.

You listed problems with healthcare, but did not connect those problems to the free market. You just assumed the free market caused them. Explain to me how free markets caused those problems and not some other factor.

 

[Xerographica]

By proposing a tax system that can't work to fund public health care.

Why couldn't it work to fund public healthcare? Public healthcare is a public good and taxpayers would be able to spend their taxes on public goods. Where's the problem?

 

[austrianecon]

Yep, but market flaws exist, such as in heath care, and in those cases government can allocate "better", depending on what outcome we want.

If you want better public health, single payer systems are empirically superior to our for profit system. If you want to make a lot of money for rich people, then our system is "better". So first you have to decide what the goal is, and there is no unitary goal of allocating resources.

No market flaw exists. It's a trumped up nonsense. Government can't allocate resources better as the Government can only allocate after the demand has spiked (months after the fact). Letting the Government (the collective) decided if a person with cancer or needs a transplant isn't a doable (cost effective) then that's a Death Panel. Which is exactly what Sarah Palin was talking about and everybody laughed.

 

[head of joaquin]

No, I mean a free market, defined as a market in which each exchange is undertaken as a voluntary agreement between two people or between groups of people represented by agents. No regulations giving advantages to anyone. The degree to which an economic system deviates from this ideal is the degree to which it is not a free market.

No such market can exist, since you're already defined and protected capital by government action. If you want to get rid of that and it's devil take the hindmost, let me know.

You listed problems with healthcare, but did not connect those problems to the free market. You just assumed the free market caused them. Explain to me how free markets caused those problems and not some other factor.

I don't quite understand what you aren't grasping. Price inelasticity is a market failure. Information discrepancies are a market failure. That's why we regulate certain markets. They fail.

 

[head of joaquin]

No market flaw exists. It's a trumped up nonsense. Government can't allocate resources better as the Government can only allocate after the demand has spiked (months after the fact). Letting the Government (the collective) decided if a person with cancer or needs a transplant isn't a doable (cost effective) then that's a Death Panel. Which is exactly what Sarah Palin was talking about and everybody laughed.

So you claim to understand the best procedure for your heart condition as well as your doctor, and you claim to understand how the exemptions to the exemption to the exemption in your health insurance coverage works? (Information imbalance). So you claim that if the hospital says an operation to save your kid's life will cost not $1,000 but $1M you'll refuse it (price inelasticity, total and complete negotiating power imbalance).

That's what I like about Austrians -- total denial.

 

[head of joaquin]

Why couldn't it work to fund public healthcare? Public healthcare is a public good and taxpayers would be able to spend their taxes on public goods. Where's the problem?

The tragedy of the commons and the freeloader problem.

 

[austrianecon]

So you claim to understand the best procedure for your heart condition as well as your doctor, and you claim to understand how the exemptions to the exemption to the exemption in your health insurance coverage works? (Information imbalance). So you claim that if the hospital says an operation to save your kid's life will cost not $1,000 but $1M you'll refuse it (price inelasticity, total and complete negotiating power imbalance).

That's what I like about Austrians -- total denial.

I never claimed anything. I just claimed what's the difference between Government telling you no and your wallet telling you no?

 

[head of joaquin]

I never claimed anything. I just claimed what's the difference between Government telling you no and your wallet telling you no?

A lot, but how is that relevant to the OP and it's apparent inability to recognize market flaws.

 

[Lakryte]

No such market can exist, since you're already defined and protected capital by government action. If you want to get rid of that and it's devil take the hindmost, let me know.

Sure such a market can exist. And in some sectors of the economy it exists more than others. But rarely does it exist in perfection. Hence why I referred to the pure free market as an ideal, and said "the degree to which an economic systems deviates from this ideal is the degree to which it is not a free market." You have to prove it is the free market elements causing problems with the healthcare system, and not the elements of government intervention.

I don't quite understand what you aren't grasping. Price inelasticity is a market failure. Information discrepancies are a market failure. That's why we regulate certain markets. They fail.

Those are both assertions. Without an argument behind them there is nothing for me to grasp. If it is so obvious that price inelasticity is a market failure, explain why in context of the healthcare system.

 

[Xerographica]

The tragedy of the commons and the freeloader problem.

People would have to pay taxes anyways...so how could the freeloader problem possibly be relevant? And how is tragedy of the commons relevant to allowing taxpayers to choose which public goods they spend their taxes on? Tragedy of the commons occurs when a resource that nobody owns is over-used. Pastures are the common example...over-fishing is another example.