7 ms·

Because capitalism. Dentists are not a cabal but a loosely affiliated set of individuals. As soon as one local dentist start filling teeth pain-free with great

Because capitalism. Dentists are not a cabal but a loosely affiliated set of individuals. As soon as one local dentist start filling teeth pain-free with great long-lasting results, all the other dentists had better adapt or they will go out of business.

bigethan 11y ago
It'd be impossible for a dentist to go rogue if the main lobbying group for the dentists wasn't allowing any new treatments to get government approval. Also, I'd argue that capitalism is what causes the entrenchment of industries that get addicted to their profits and don't care about the customers.
- avmich 11y ago
  It'd be possible for public to mount enough pressure on government to allow for that. Given a few assumptions, of course - enough information, attentive enough government, enough energy in the society etc.
- merpnderp 11y ago
  Wouldn't the government approval issue be more of a socialist factor? Would a socialist government, who's dental representatives want to protect their slice of the public pie be more or less powerful than a capitalist leaning government who wants to limit interference in the market? For instance, is the teachers union more or less powerful than the dental lobbyists?
  - bigethan 11y ago
    >Wouldn't the government approval issue be more of a socialist factor? One uses money to manipulate the people in charge of socialist government programs. I'd bet that the dental lobbyists are stronger in their niche than the teachers union is because there's less public knowledge and interest there.
- ams6110 11y ago
  I'd argue that capitalism is what causes the entrenchment of industries that get addicted to their profits and don't care about the customers. No, this is human nature. People with power and wealth act to protect it. This is true whether they get their power and wealth because they are high-ranking politicans, party officials or bureaucrats, or whether they earned it in the private sector.
stevetrewick 11y ago
That's not capitalism, that's market economics. Often (arguably universally at this point in history, but watch this space) found together but not at all the same. Your point stands, nevertheless.
- merpnderp 11y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_economy First section.....Capitalism. Capitalism is certainly a type of market economy.
  - eric_h 11y ago
    Squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    "In state capitalist systems, markets are relied upon the least, with the state relying heavily on either indirect economic planning and/or state-owned enterprises to accumulate capital." Your own link doesn't support what you're saying.
    - merpnderp 11y ago
      State Capitalism may be an actual thing. But no one means it when they say "capitalism". "State capitalism is usually described as an economic system in which commercial (i.e. for-profit) economic activity is undertaken by the state, where the means of production are organized and managed as state-owned business enterprises"
      - mikeash 11y ago
        I find this response to be curious. Why not simply assume that the other person up there does include State Capitalism under the umbrella of "capitalism" when they say that capitalism and free markets don't always go together, rather than assume that they intend a definition of "capitalism" that automatically excludes the very thing they were saying?

bigethan 11y ago

It'd be impossible for a dentist to go rogue if the main lobbying group for the dentists wasn't allowing any new treatments to get government approval. Also, I'd argue that capitalism is what causes the entrenchment of industries that get addicted to their profits and don't care about the customers.

avmich 11y ago
It'd be possible for public to mount enough pressure on government to allow for that. Given a few assumptions, of course - enough information, attentive enough government, enough energy in the society etc.
merpnderp 11y ago
Wouldn't the government approval issue be more of a socialist factor? Would a socialist government, who's dental representatives want to protect their slice of the public pie be more or less powerful than a capitalist leaning government who wants to limit interference in the market? For instance, is the teachers union more or less powerful than the dental lobbyists?
- bigethan 11y ago
  >Wouldn't the government approval issue be more of a socialist factor? One uses money to manipulate the people in charge of socialist government programs. I'd bet that the dental lobbyists are stronger in their niche than the teachers union is because there's less public knowledge and interest there.
ams6110 11y ago
I'd argue that capitalism is what causes the entrenchment of industries that get addicted to their profits and don't care about the customers. No, this is human nature. People with power and wealth act to protect it. This is true whether they get their power and wealth because they are high-ranking politicans, party officials or bureaucrats, or whether they earned it in the private sector.

stevetrewick 11y ago

That's not capitalism, that's market economics. Often (arguably universally at this point in history, but watch this space) found together but not at all the same. Your point stands, nevertheless.

merpnderp 11y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_economy First section.....Capitalism. Capitalism is certainly a type of market economy.
- eric_h 11y ago
  Squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.
- mikeash 11y ago
  "In state capitalist systems, markets are relied upon the least, with the state relying heavily on either indirect economic planning and/or state-owned enterprises to accumulate capital." Your own link doesn't support what you're saying.
  - merpnderp 11y ago
    State Capitalism may be an actual thing. But no one means it when they say "capitalism". "State capitalism is usually described as an economic system in which commercial (i.e. for-profit) economic activity is undertaken by the state, where the means of production are organized and managed as state-owned business enterprises"
    - mikeash 11y ago
      I find this response to be curious. Why not simply assume that the other person up there does include State Capitalism under the umbrella of "capitalism" when they say that capitalism and free markets don't always go together, rather than assume that they intend a definition of "capitalism" that automatically excludes the very thing they were saying?