|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 02 2014 01:22 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2014 23:29 oneofthem wrote:
the prince of yen book is interesting but a bit dramatic for beginners, because some of the stuff portrayed as new are in fact already known. window guidance is nothing new, and the institutional independence is a basic fact about any institution, not merely central banks.
based on their current policies, it would be hard to argue that they are a neoliberal conspiracy. it's something straight out of MMT if anything.
and let's not be manichean about 'neoliberalism.' call a situation what it is. sometimes you really do need more competitive markets and less entrenched corporations with no foreign competition. It's not about conspiracy. People who believe in conspiracy are lazy. But the fact is that neoliberalism is in control, and that most policy today follow that ideology is pretty easy to support. More competitive market doesn't mean a thing. What is a market ? How do you define it ? What's competition ? At which point can we consider a market to be competitive ? The problem is that behind all those definitions there are assumption (on ressources allocation mainly) that are not only false empirically but also based on a certain ideology / view of the world. Personally I don't need a policy that seeks pure and perfect markets and I'll respond that the "we" you use in your assertion does not exist - a more "competitive market" and "foreign competition" does not lead to a better world for "we", but for some people.
A market consists of at least two people engaging in trade. Competition is what occurs within a market, between market participants, in order to offer a product or service to the consumer at a better quality or price point than a competitor. Most markets are competitive by default. An example of a non competitive market would be one that occurs under communism. The only assumption is that people are selfish and will seek trades that increase their standard of living as opposed to trades that decrease it. Competitive markets increase standard of living for all people. This should be obvious to most, but when there exists unrestricted competition to provide products and services, societies scarce resources are used more efficiently, which results in lower prices and higher quality products with less waste of finite resources.
|
what a ridiculous sock-puppet.
|
Which is a complete fantasy for "markets" like healthcare, which I thought even the most stubborn people would have acknowledge by now.
|
On November 02 2014 02:05 Nyxisto wrote:
Which is a complete fantasy for "markets" like healthcare, which I thought even the most stubborn people would have acknowledge by now.
Is healthcare comprised of products and services?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
whitedoge this is not a game of definitions no need to get cute. the market is here referring to the japanese economy specifically their big corporate players. say what you will about the regretable or otherwise changes to overall global competition it is clear that japan is lagging behind and wasting potential
|
On November 02 2014 01:46 Vegetarian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2014 01:22 WhiteDog wrote:On November 01 2014 23:29 oneofthem wrote:
the prince of yen book is interesting but a bit dramatic for beginners, because some of the stuff portrayed as new are in fact already known. window guidance is nothing new, and the institutional independence is a basic fact about any institution, not merely central banks.
based on their current policies, it would be hard to argue that they are a neoliberal conspiracy. it's something straight out of MMT if anything.
and let's not be manichean about 'neoliberalism.' call a situation what it is. sometimes you really do need more competitive markets and less entrenched corporations with no foreign competition. It's not about conspiracy. People who believe in conspiracy are lazy. But the fact is that neoliberalism is in control, and that most policy today follow that ideology is pretty easy to support. More competitive market doesn't mean a thing. What is a market ? How do you define it ? What's competition ? At which point can we consider a market to be competitive ? The problem is that behind all those definitions there are assumption (on ressources allocation mainly) that are not only false empirically but also based on a certain ideology / view of the world. Personally I don't need a policy that seeks pure and perfect markets and I'll respond that the "we" you use in your assertion does not exist - a more "competitive market" and "foreign competition" does not lead to a better world for "we", but for some people. A market consists of at least two people engaging in trade. Competition is what occurs within a market, between market participants, in order to offer a product or service to the consumer at a better quality or price point than a competitor. Most markets are competitive by default. An example of a non competitive market would be one that occurs under communism. The only assumption is that people are selfish and will seek trades that increase their standard of living as opposed to trades that decrease it. Competitive markets increase standard of living for all people. This should be obvious to most, but when there exists unrestricted competition to provide products and services, societies scarce resources are used more efficiently, which results in lower prices and higher quality products with less waste of finite resources.
Yeah as I said it's pretty full of assumption and simple thinking. Saying it's obvious doesn't quite cut it when you're talking with people who knows a little about the question at hand...
Through which process does the market increase the standard of living ? The equilibrium ? What makes you believe that the equilibrium necessarily leads to an increase in living standard ?
How does the market achieve this equilibrium ? Are you sure that offer and demand always follow the "law of offer and demand" ? How do you explain it ?
In practice, explain me how the competition between a US worker and a Chinese worker increase the US's worker standard of living ? And what about the fact that markets seems to crush competition without any action from outside the market ?
What about the fact that price and costs in the market does not take into consideration most of the effective cost that the society have to pay for the production of said good ? What about the fact that without the action of the state there are no possibility for many services and goods to be produced ?
But yeah liberalism is more efficient don't worry. Let dem markets go ! Freedom of choice !
I'll tell you the real objective reasons to defend the "free market" above all : increase in profit, more remuneration to capital, rich get richer. The rest is mostly bullshit.
On November 02 2014 02:08 oneofthem wrote:
whitedoge this is not a game of definitions no need to get cute. the market is here referring to the japanese economy specifically their big corporate players. say what you will about the regretable or otherwise changes to overall global competition it is clear that japan is lagging behind and wasting potential
Lagging behind who oneofsanto ? The US with its astonishing poverty rate ?
|
but i was thinking, that really sounds like nyxisto:
a tangential cry about communism, and fantasizing
about how capitalism will save our 'finite resources'
from being wasted.
and whadda you know, here he is.
i think he's alley-ooping his own posts: #tlgate.
|
On November 02 2014 02:07 Vegetarian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2014 02:05 Nyxisto wrote:
Which is a complete fantasy for "markets" like healthcare, which I thought even the most stubborn people would have acknowledge by now. Is healthcare comprised of products and services?
Yes, but it lacks market mechanisms like the freedom to actually decide between products or services (you're not able to choose hospital B over A if you're bleeding out) and customers don't know enough about medicine to make informed decisions on their own. So in reality there never is real competition in that specific market.
On November 02 2014 02:10 nunez wrote:
and whadda you know, here he is.
i think he's alley-ooping his own posts: #tlgate.
it's all part of my sinister plan
|
|
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
this is beyond ridiculous. do any of you actually know what the boj is up to?
|
On November 02 2014 02:10 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2014 01:46 Vegetarian wrote:On November 02 2014 01:22 WhiteDog wrote:On November 01 2014 23:29 oneofthem wrote:
the prince of yen book is interesting but a bit dramatic for beginners, because some of the stuff portrayed as new are in fact already known. window guidance is nothing new, and the institutional independence is a basic fact about any institution, not merely central banks.
based on their current policies, it would be hard to argue that they are a neoliberal conspiracy. it's something straight out of MMT if anything.
and let's not be manichean about 'neoliberalism.' call a situation what it is. sometimes you really do need more competitive markets and less entrenched corporations with no foreign competition. It's not about conspiracy. People who believe in conspiracy are lazy. But the fact is that neoliberalism is in control, and that most policy today follow that ideology is pretty easy to support. More competitive market doesn't mean a thing. What is a market ? How do you define it ? What's competition ? At which point can we consider a market to be competitive ? The problem is that behind all those definitions there are assumption (on ressources allocation mainly) that are not only false empirically but also based on a certain ideology / view of the world. Personally I don't need a policy that seeks pure and perfect markets and I'll respond that the "we" you use in your assertion does not exist - a more "competitive market" and "foreign competition" does not lead to a better world for "we", but for some people. A market consists of at least two people engaging in trade. Competition is what occurs within a market, between market participants, in order to offer a product or service to the consumer at a better quality or price point than a competitor. Most markets are competitive by default. An example of a non competitive market would be one that occurs under communism. The only assumption is that people are selfish and will seek trades that increase their standard of living as opposed to trades that decrease it. Competitive markets increase standard of living for all people. This should be obvious to most, but when there exists unrestricted competition to provide products and services, societies scarce resources are used more efficiently, which results in lower prices and higher quality products with less waste of finite resources. Yeah as I said it's pretty full of assumption and simple thinking. Saying it's obvious doesn't quite cut it when you're talking with people who knows a little about the question at hand... Through which process does the market increase the standard of living ? The equilibrium ? What makes you believe that the equilibrium necessarily leads to an increase in living standard ? How does the market achieve this equilibrium ? Are you sure that offer and demand always follow the "law of offer and demand" ? How do you explain it ? In practice, explain me how the competition between a US worker and a Chinese worker increase the US's worker standard of living ? And what about the fact that markets seems to crush competition without any action from outside the market ? What about the fact that price and costs in the market does not take into consideration most of the effective cost that the society have to pay for the production of said good ? What about the fact that without the action of the state there are no possibility for many services and goods to be produced ? Show nested quote +On November 02 2014 02:08 oneofthem wrote:
whitedoge this is not a game of definitions no need to get cute. the market is here referring to the japanese economy specifically their big corporate players. say what you will about the regretable or otherwise changes to overall global competition it is clear that japan is lagging behind and wasting potential Lagging behind who oneofsanto ? The US with its astonishing poverty rate ?
The free market increases standard of living because it allows competition to provide any product or service. Initially, with few exceptions, this leads to products and services only being offered by people who believe they can make a profit doing so. Once a profitable product or service is developed, standard of living has increased because a need or demand of one or more people in the society is now being met. Products or services that don't sell cause the entrepreneur to consistently lose money. If the entrepreneur is not meeting sufficient demand for their product or service they are essentially wasting societies scarce resources by producing a product that does not increase standard of living.
For example, Bob decides he wants to sell pizza. He spends his resources on a restaurant and attempts to sell pizza. Bob incurs costs in order to run his new business. Lets pretend he has to pay 1000$ a month on rent for his restaurant,1000$ a month on ingredients, and 1000$ a month on staff for his restaurant. If Bob is able to sell 3000$ a month or more in pizza then his product/service is correctly utilizing societies scarce resources to provide a product or service that is voted on to be sustained by the given market. If Bob is only able to sell 2000$ a month in pizza then the market would be telling him that he is unable to utilize societies scarce resources for this endeavor. The longer Bob chose to carry on offering his product at a loss the more of his own resources he would lose. Eventually if Bob didn't change course he would lose all of his resources to people that were operating at a profit. This ensures that if someone is wasting societies resources they are limited to wasting only the amount which they can afford at market prices.
Equilibrium is never reached in a free market. The whole point of competition is to allow resources to be used more efficiently, indefinitely, by anyone who has the resources to try. Competition causes standard of living to increase because it ensures that scarce resources are used in the most efficient manner. This results in the highest quality and lowest priced products because only the most efficient producers can succeed when forced to compete. This also results in the best utilization of earths resources. More products and services from a finite pool of resources means a higher standard of living for all.
A US worker competes with a Chinese worker to provide products, but they are also the consumers of each other products. If a Chinese worker can out compete a US worker in producing a product that means that they are the one the market has voted on to produce that product as they are using shared resources more efficiently in the production of that product. This sends a signal to the US worker to start using their resources differently or they will consistently lose market share and resources to the Chinese worker until they are forced into a new profession. If you don't allow competition then you get people producing products or services inefficiently, thereby wasting societies scarce resources and lowering standard of living for all.
Perhaps you can clarify your additional questions. I am not sure what products you are referring to that require a state in order to be produced. If a product cannot be sustained by the free market then it should not be produced as it would be wasting societies scarce resources.
|
On November 02 2014 02:12 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2014 02:07 Vegetarian wrote:On November 02 2014 02:05 Nyxisto wrote:
Which is a complete fantasy for "markets" like healthcare, which I thought even the most stubborn people would have acknowledge by now. Is healthcare comprised of products and services? Yes, but it lacks market mechanisms like the freedom to actually decide between products or services (you're not able to choose hospital B over A if you're bleeding out) and customers don't know enough about medicine to make informed decisions on their own. So in reality there never is real competition in that specific market. Show nested quote +On November 02 2014 02:10 nunez wrote:
and whadda you know, here he is.
i think he's alley-ooping his own posts: #tlgate. it's all part of my sinister plan
Are these restrictions a product of the free market or of a different entity?
I think you are misunderstanding the product and service of medical care. Doctor's are hired to offer opinions on subjects of medical care which the patient/customer may not be familiar with. This system is applicable to other products and services like law firms which provide their services in a similar vein. The same could be said about money management firms. Some customers do know enough about medicine to make informed decisions and the market currently allows these people to purchase medications, supplements, and food without a doctors approval. If there is no competition in this market then there would never be new medicines, supplements, or treatment protocols.
|
Yes, that's why lawyers are so expensive that poor people can't afford them and that's why they get screwed over all the time in court. That's exactly my point. The American healthcare system is twice as expensive and still has tens of millions of people not insured. We had this a dozen times in this thread already and I'm pretty sure the lowest common denominator between basically everybody was that the current system is pretty awful.
|
On November 02 2014 03:14 Nyxisto wrote:
Yes, that's why lawyers are so expensive that poor people can't afford them and that's why they get screwed over all the time in court. That's exactly my point. The American healthcare system is twice as expensive and still has tens of millions of people not insured. We had this a dozen times in this thread already and I'm pretty sure the lowest common denominator between basically everybody was that the current system is pretty awful.
Are the courts the result of the free market? Or, are the courts an example of a government provided service not subject to competition? The high cost of lawyers can be explained by the difficulty in practicing and learning law which the government determines. Lawyers also operate in government provided courts which tend to take a very long time as they are not subject to competition.
|
On November 02 2014 03:00 Vegetarian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2014 02:10 WhiteDog wrote:On November 02 2014 01:46 Vegetarian wrote:On November 02 2014 01:22 WhiteDog wrote:On November 01 2014 23:29 oneofthem wrote:
the prince of yen book is interesting but a bit dramatic for beginners, because some of the stuff portrayed as new are in fact already known. window guidance is nothing new, and the institutional independence is a basic fact about any institution, not merely central banks.
based on their current policies, it would be hard to argue that they are a neoliberal conspiracy. it's something straight out of MMT if anything.
and let's not be manichean about 'neoliberalism.' call a situation what it is. sometimes you really do need more competitive markets and less entrenched corporations with no foreign competition. It's not about conspiracy. People who believe in conspiracy are lazy. But the fact is that neoliberalism is in control, and that most policy today follow that ideology is pretty easy to support. More competitive market doesn't mean a thing. What is a market ? How do you define it ? What's competition ? At which point can we consider a market to be competitive ? The problem is that behind all those definitions there are assumption (on ressources allocation mainly) that are not only false empirically but also based on a certain ideology / view of the world. Personally I don't need a policy that seeks pure and perfect markets and I'll respond that the "we" you use in your assertion does not exist - a more "competitive market" and "foreign competition" does not lead to a better world for "we", but for some people. A market consists of at least two people engaging in trade. Competition is what occurs within a market, between market participants, in order to offer a product or service to the consumer at a better quality or price point than a competitor. Most markets are competitive by default. An example of a non competitive market would be one that occurs under communism. The only assumption is that people are selfish and will seek trades that increase their standard of living as opposed to trades that decrease it. Competitive markets increase standard of living for all people. This should be obvious to most, but when there exists unrestricted competition to provide products and services, societies scarce resources are used more efficiently, which results in lower prices and higher quality products with less waste of finite resources. Yeah as I said it's pretty full of assumption and simple thinking. Saying it's obvious doesn't quite cut it when you're talking with people who knows a little about the question at hand... Through which process does the market increase the standard of living ? The equilibrium ? What makes you believe that the equilibrium necessarily leads to an increase in living standard ? How does the market achieve this equilibrium ? Are you sure that offer and demand always follow the "law of offer and demand" ? How do you explain it ? In practice, explain me how the competition between a US worker and a Chinese worker increase the US's worker standard of living ? And what about the fact that markets seems to crush competition without any action from outside the market ? What about the fact that price and costs in the market does not take into consideration most of the effective cost that the society have to pay for the production of said good ? What about the fact that without the action of the state there are no possibility for many services and goods to be produced ? On November 02 2014 02:08 oneofthem wrote:
whitedoge this is not a game of definitions no need to get cute. the market is here referring to the japanese economy specifically their big corporate players. say what you will about the regretable or otherwise changes to overall global competition it is clear that japan is lagging behind and wasting potential Lagging behind who oneofsanto ? The US with its astonishing poverty rate ? The free market increases standard of living because it allows competition to provide any product or service. Initially, with few exceptions, this leads to products and services only being offered by people who believe they can make a profit doing so. Once a profitable product or service is developed, standard of living has increased because a need or demand of one or more people in the society is now being met. Products or services that don't sell cause the entrepreneur to consistently lose money. If the entrepreneur is not meeting sufficient demand for their product or service they are essentially wasting societies scarce resources by producing a product that does not increase standard of living.
But the standard of living is not only the agreggate production or consumption of goods, it's about having a job, being stable enough to build up a familly, educate yourself and your child, etc. It's also about having the longest living expectancy, and the fewest disease possible, and some people might even argue that their living standard is influenced by the way we protect nature because they like it. All those things are completly put aside in your view of the market.
That's why a high school level reasonning cannot lead us to the end of history.
Competition causes standard of living to increase because it ensures that scarce resources are used in the most efficient manner. This results in the highest quality and lowest priced products because only the most efficient producers can succeed when forced to compete. This also results in the best utilization of earths resources. More products and services from a finite pool of resources means a higher standard of living for all.
Again, when you say efficient, IT IS NOT TRUE : you're talking about a specific efficience, which is pareto efficiency. The definition of what efficiency is is largely linked to subjective matter : I consider inequalities as inefficient from an economic and a moral standpoint, your modelisation does not. For exemple, I consider a situation with a guy having 10 cookie, another with 6, and three guy with 0 cookies to be less efficient that a situation where the five guys have each 3 cookies, altho the aggregate production is less.
And all your point of view is true only if competition is pure and perfect, which suppose a certain specific hypothesis that Debreu and Arrow tried to explain, and that are completly illusionary.
A large number buyers and sellers – A large number of consumers with the willingness and ability to buy the product at a certain price, and a large number of producers with the willingness and ability to supply the product at a certain price.
No barriers of entry and exit – No entry and exit barriers makes it extremely easy to enter or exit a perfectly competitive market.
Perfect factor mobility – In the long run factors of production are perfectly mobile, allowing free long term adjustments to changing market conditions.
Perfect information - All consumers and producers are assumed to have perfect knowledge of price, utility, quality and production methods of products.
Zero transaction costs - Buyers and sellers do not incur costs in making an exchange of goods in a perfectly competitive market.
Profit maximization - Firms are assumed to sell where marginal costs meet marginal revenue, where the most profit is generated.
Homogeneous products - The products are perfect substitutes for each other;i.e-the qualities and characteristics of a market good or service do not vary between different suppliers.
Non-increasing returns to scale - The lack of increasing returns to scale (or economies of scale) ensures that there will always be a sufficient number of firms in the industry.
Property rights - Well defined property rights determine what may be sold, as well as what rights are conferred on the buyer.
Rational buyers - buyers capable of making rational purchases based on information given
No externalities - costs or benefits of an activity do not affect third parties
Let me give you an exemple : the US has/had the most "competitive" health care system in the world, let's see how EFFICIENT it was (data from 2009).
![[image loading]](http://blogs-images.forbes.com/danmunro/files/2014/04/cost1.png) Yeah completly inefficient : cost twice more than UK's or France's public healthcare, less result. But why the market does not work ? Not free enough ?
Perhaps you can clarify your additional questions. I am not sure what products you are referring to that require a state in order to be produced. If a product cannot be sustained by the free market then it should not be produced as it would be wasting societies scarce resources.
Most public transportation are created thanks to the role of the state, most health services also need the help of the state, most important research were made thanks to the state, most good education program and schools exist thanks to the help of the state : all those things, that are absolutly crucial to the "living standard", would not be developped enough by the market (because they don't have direct market value, cost a lot, but have huge positive externalities).
|
Everything you refer to in your first paragraph falls under standard of living which is improved in a free market system and reduced in a centrally planned system.
What is pareto efficiency? Perhaps you can address my arguments instead of invoking straw men. I am referring to the efficient use of earth's resources based on the concept of supply and demand. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand)
Inequality is minimized in a free market because it increases the standard of living for all people. Inequality is maximized with central planning because this ensures that more of societies resources are wasted. Competition is never perfect, it only needs to be free to result in a rising standard of living.
Public transportation is fully capable of being provided by the free market and there are numerous examples of this.
Can you provide an argument for why the free market cannot provide any of the products or services that you list? Can you provide an argument that a centrally planned monopoly on select goods or services results in a higher living standard and not a waste of resources? If a product or service cannot be supported by the free market then why do you think you know better as to how societies resources should be distributed? This mentality is what creates inequality.
The graph you provide does not even show the USA which has significantly more regulations than the healthcare industries of most countries. I am not sure why you believe it is a good example of a free market. Maybe you can make an argument?
|
On November 02 2014 03:50 Vegetarian wrote:
Everything you refer to in your first paragraph falls under standard of living which is improved in a free market system and reduced in a centrally planned system.
What is pareto efficiency? Perhaps you can address my arguments instead of invoking straw men. I am referring to the efficient use of earth's resources based on the concept of supply and demand. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand)
Inequality is minimized in a free market because it increases the standard of living for all people. Inequality is maximized with central planning because this ensures that more of societies resources are wasted. Competition is never perfect, it only needs to be free to result in a rising standard of living.
Public transportation is fully capable of being provided by the free market and there are numerous examples of this.
Can you provide an argument for why the free market cannot provide any of the products or services that you list? Can you provide an argument that a centrally planned monopoly on select goods or services results in a higher living standard and not a waste of resources? If a product or service cannot be supported by the free market then why do you think you know better as to how societies resources should be distributed? This mentality is what creates inequality.
The graph you provide does not even show the USA which has significantly more regulations than the healthcare industries of most countries. I am not sure why you believe it is a good example of a free market. Maybe you can make an argument?
The graph does show the USA -- look at the right side of it. Do you honestly not see it?
And it's arguable, if not blatantly false, that the USA's healthcare industry is more regulated than something like UK's NHS.
BUT -- while not more regulated, it certainly is the most bureaucratic healthcare industry in the world. It's just that the bureaucracy exists outside the government.
It's a prime example of how wasteful private industry can be if the market is completely taken for granted (and the need for healthcare is something you can always take for granted). There is all the incentive in the world to inflate the "need" for healthcare, and no incentive to actually shrink the industry for efficiency's sake. Business wants to enlarge, business always wants growth. You get giant middle-men industries. You get pharmaceuticals marketing themselves to the lowest common denominator of ailments.
Prisons, healthcare -- any service towards the basic necessities of life and society should not be given incentives and made to grow off of profit. Why can conservatives not see how awful this line of thinking is, that "private industry is always more efficient"? The truth is: inefficiency can be profitable, businesses are bureaucratic messes as much as governments are, and some markets are not meant to be grown and exploited, "free" or otherwise. Servicing society's miseries and ailments should ideally be something you need as little of as possible. You make prisons and hospitals things of profit, and all of a sudden you have a lot of "criminals" and "sick people" on your hands.
|
On November 02 2014 03:50 Vegetarian wrote:
What is pareto efficiency? Perhaps you can address my arguments instead of invoking straw men. I am referring to the efficient use of earth's resources based on the concept of supply and demand. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand)
I've adressed your arguments, even took the time to give you an exemple of non pareto efficient equilibrium that is, to me, better for a society than a market efficiency (pareto efficience is the kind of efficience you get when the market reach equilibrium...). It seems like you an incomplete knowledge on the subject, but if you read the supply and demand page on wiki, you'd know that "The model of prices being determined by supply and demand assumes perfect competition". The "efficiency" of the market (through the equilibrium) is true only if the competition is perfect, which is why I told you it's an illusion. Also, from the perfect competition page : "As a Pareto efficient allocation of economic resources, perfect competition serves as a natural benchmark against which to contrast other market structures."
Inequality is minimized in a free market because it increases the standard of living for all people. Inequality is maximized with central planning because this ensures that more of societies resources are wasted. Competition is never perfect, it only needs to be free to result in a rising standard of living.
That's some beautiful bullshit. Do you have any proof of that ?
Can you provide an argument for why the free market cannot provide any of the products or services that you list? Can you provide an argument that a centrally planned monopoly on select goods or services results in a higher living standard and not a waste of resources? If a product or service cannot be supported by the free market then why do you think you know better as to how societies resources should be distributed? This mentality is what creates inequality.
I've provided plenty arguments. Try reading the "public goods" page, "eternality" and "information asymmetry" on wiki maybe ? It's a good start.
Healthcare in UK is NOT a competitive environment : it is completly public and financed through taxation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_England)
Healthcare in England is mainly provided by England's public health service, the National Health Service, that provides healthcare to all permanent residents of the United Kingdom that is free at the point of use and paid for from general taxation. Since health is a devolved matter, there are differences with the provisions for healthcare elsewhere in the United Kingdom.[1] Though the public system dominates healthcare provision in England, private health care and a wide variety of alternative and complementary treatments are available for those willing to pay.
Same for France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_France)
The French health care system is one of universal health care largely financed by government national health insurance. In its 2000 assessment of world health care systems, the World Health Organization found that France provided the "close to best overall health care" in the world.[1] In 2011, France spent 11.6% of GDP on health care, or US$4,086 per capita,[2] a figure much higher than the average spent by countries in Europe but less than in the US. Approximately 77% of health expenditures are covered by government funded agencies.[3]
|
On November 02 2014 03:50 Vegetarian wrote:
The graph you provide does not even show the USA which has significantly more regulations than the healthcare industries of most countries. I am not sure why you believe it is a good example of a free market. Maybe you can make an argument?
The USA is on the far far far right of the graph. The UK system is mostly government run. The US has a lot of regulations but is privately run.
|
On November 02 2014 04:10 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2014 03:50 Vegetarian wrote:
What is pareto efficiency? Perhaps you can address my arguments instead of invoking straw men. I am referring to the efficient use of earth's resources based on the concept of supply and demand. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand) I've adressed your arguments, even took the time to give you an exemple of non pareto efficient equilibrium that is, to me, better for a society than a market efficiency (pareto efficience is the kind of efficience you get when the market reach equilibrium...). It seems like you an incomplete knowledge on the subject, but if you read the supply and demand page on wiki, you'd know that "The model of prices being determined by supply and demand assumes perfect competition". The "efficiency" of the market (through the equilibrium) is true only if the competition is perfect, which is why I told you it's an illusion. Also, from the perfect competition page : "As a Pareto efficient allocation of economic resources, perfect competition serves as a natural benchmark against which to contrast other market structures." Show nested quote +Inequality is minimized in a free market because it increases the standard of living for all people. Inequality is maximized with central planning because this ensures that more of societies resources are wasted. Competition is never perfect, it only needs to be free to result in a rising standard of living. That's some beautiful bullshit. Do you have any proof of that ? Show nested quote +Can you provide an argument for why the free market cannot provide any of the products or services that you list? Can you provide an argument that a centrally planned monopoly on select goods or services results in a higher living standard and not a waste of resources? If a product or service cannot be supported by the free market then why do you think you know better as to how societies resources should be distributed? This mentality is what creates inequality. I've provided plenty arguments. Try reading the "public goods" page, "eternality" and "information asymmetry" on wiki maybe ? It's a good start. Healthcare in UK is NOT a competitive environment : it is completly public and financed through taxation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_England) Show nested quote +Healthcare in England is mainly provided by England's public health service, the National Health Service, that provides healthcare to all permanent residents of the United Kingdom that is free at the point of use and paid for from general taxation. Since health is a devolved matter, there are differences with the provisions for healthcare elsewhere in the United Kingdom.[1] Though the public system dominates healthcare provision in England, private health care and a wide variety of alternative and complementary treatments are available for those willing to pay. Same for France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_France) Show nested quote +The French health care system is one of universal health care largely financed by government national health insurance. In its 2000 assessment of world health care systems, the World Health Organization found that France provided the "close to best overall health care" in the world.[1] In 2011, France spent 11.6% of GDP on health care, or US$4,086 per capita,[2] a figure much higher than the average spent by countries in Europe but less than in the US. Approximately 77% of health expenditures are covered by government funded agencies.[3]
You have not addressed my arguments. Perhaps you should reread my posts. Calling a perfectly logical argument, "bullshit" is not a counter argument. Learn to use logic or you will always fail in debate.
I have explained to you that competition does not result in equilibrium. You are arguing against a straw man. Competition does not need to be perfect for a free market to raise standard of living more than any other system. You are misunderstanding what competition means and how it relates to using resources to manufacture a product or provide a service. I have provided a coherent logical explanation that I suggest you read in my prior post.
You have not made an argument as to why a free market could not provide certain products or services or why the government is better suited to provide any of them. If you cannot do so then just admit it. I could list a bunch of articles for you to read, but I am having a discussion with you about I subject I understand. The same cannot be said of you.
You seem very confused about the United States healthcare system. If you are going to argue that it is a free market then I wish you luck and await your argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
