5 ms·

Yes. A free market is a solution. Naturally regulated markets satisfy customer demands at the lowest cost when compared to the results any other system.

eropple 11y ago
And people die needlessly because they can't pay. Are we not better than that?
- bravo 11y ago
  You could apply that to so many things. It's just an appeal to emotion. People also needlessly lack education because they can't pay, but we'd be fucked if the government jumped to guarantee more loans and grants.
  - eropple 11y ago
    If you were begging the question any harder, you'd be one of the people tech guys hate on in the Tenderloin. And at the same time you're teetering on the edge of an epiphany that strikes at the heart of techno-fetishistic free-market worship. Because the government guaranteeing loans and grants isn't a good way to provide education, no--but plenty of countries make education a state function and charge a very manageable amount, if anything at all, to students, while making the total cost of operation remarkably reasonable.
    - bravo 11y ago
      I don't understand - are you saying I was wrong? If so please tell me why or recommend me some reading. I do know that other countries are able state-fund education, but I don't concretely know why they're different. I just assumed that "jumping to guarantee more loans" is an obviously bad idea.
Oletros 11y ago
> Naturally regulated markets satisfy customer demands at the lowest cost when compared to the results any other system Do we have any study about that claim?
wamatt 11y ago
Comcast and Ticketmaster execs would heartily agree with that opinion
- mumumuyou2 11y ago
  You think Comcast likes the competition from a slew of telecoms, Google, and DirecTV?
beagle3 11y ago
Free markets are good a at lot of things, but staying free is not one of them. (Similarly for a democracy, by the way). A "naturally" regulated market eventually converges into one all-powerful monopoly player - it's a stable configuration that maximizes the profit for the owners of that monopoly. So you have to regulate this "freedom" away from disappearing - in the same way that GPL regulates BSD freedom away from disappearing.
- mumumuyou2 11y ago
  Coca Cola has been around for 129 years. How many centuries does this process take?
  - beagle3 11y ago
    Coca Cola is a luxury item. If they raise the price too much, no one will buy it, and that puts an upper limit to the price (and makes consolidation less profitable). And it still may happen if not for antitrust - I'm sure a combined RCPepsiCoca Cola company will be more profitable than three independent ones. The only reason DataPrim price could be hiked was that the people who need it will actually pay for it. Same with ACTH. A captive audience is a wonderful thing -- something Coca Cola would love but doesn't have. There were ~100 car manufacturers 100 years ago, how many are there now? (And cars are not as essential as ACTH) There were tens to hundreds of media companies up until the 1980's. Now, there are essentially six[0]. And if antitrust didn't matter, there would probably be less. Similar things are happening in pharma[0]. It is one aspect of capitalism that's to blame: "free market". If you monopolies are legal (and in a totally free market, they are), then you will get monopolies because they are more effective at extracting rent than competition. we've just seen this happen twice in the pharma market. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_cross-ownership_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_cross-ownership_in_the_U... [1] http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6aad8ebe-e9c0-11e4-b863-00144feab7de.html http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6aad8ebe-e9c0-11e4-b863-00144feab7...
  - pixl97 11y ago
    Are you saying Coca Cola is not attempting to get a soft drink monopoly? You should be a convenience store owner and see both the battle between them and Pepsi and the demands they put on their customers for preferred pricing.
JamesBarney 11y ago
Healthcare and pharmaceuticals are not even in the ball park of a normal free market. 1. Monopolies - We give monopolies to pharmaceutical companies to incentivize R&D. 2. Principal-Agent problem - Doctors guide, and make decisions about care for consumers. But However consumers of health care have different incentives than doctors. 3. Insurance - Most individuals are relatively shielded from the costs of their healthcare. 4. Public Good - Many people want to live in a society where people do not die from easily treatable conditions. So yes a free markets is always the optimal solution given a certain set of assumptions. Unfortunately very few of these assumptions are true in healthcare.
collyw 11y ago
Disproven by privatisation of the UK rail industry. I think it's the most expensive in Europe, certainly close. Oh, and the European healthcare systems.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Naturally regulated markets There is no such thing. "Free markets" presume both particular context (which is not present in any real state, though it can sometimes be approximated) and particular artificial regulation (particular, particular constructions of property rights.) The idea that "naturally regulated markets" is a meaningful concept (much less a meaningful concept with some correspondence with "free markets") is absurd on its face.
jbssm 11y ago
All nice and dandy in theory, clearly disproven by practice. Heath costs and medicine costs in Europe and Canada are lower than in the USA.

eropple 11y ago

And people die needlessly because they can't pay. Are we not better than that?

bravo 11y ago
You could apply that to so many things. It's just an appeal to emotion. People also needlessly lack education because they can't pay, but we'd be fucked if the government jumped to guarantee more loans and grants.
- eropple 11y ago
  If you were begging the question any harder, you'd be one of the people tech guys hate on in the Tenderloin. And at the same time you're teetering on the edge of an epiphany that strikes at the heart of techno-fetishistic free-market worship. Because the government guaranteeing loans and grants isn't a good way to provide education, no--but plenty of countries make education a state function and charge a very manageable amount, if anything at all, to students, while making the total cost of operation remarkably reasonable.
  - bravo 11y ago
    I don't understand - are you saying I was wrong? If so please tell me why or recommend me some reading. I do know that other countries are able state-fund education, but I don't concretely know why they're different. I just assumed that "jumping to guarantee more loans" is an obviously bad idea.

Oletros 11y ago

> Naturally regulated markets satisfy customer demands at the lowest cost when compared to the results any other system Do we have any study about that claim?

wamatt 11y ago

Comcast and Ticketmaster execs would heartily agree with that opinion

mumumuyou2 11y ago
You think Comcast likes the competition from a slew of telecoms, Google, and DirecTV?

beagle3 11y ago

Free markets are good a at lot of things, but staying free is not one of them. (Similarly for a democracy, by the way). A "naturally" regulated market eventually converges into one all-powerful monopoly player - it's a stable configuration that maximizes the profit for the owners of that monopoly. So you have to regulate this "freedom" away from disappearing - in the same way that GPL regulates BSD freedom away from disappearing.

mumumuyou2 11y ago
Coca Cola has been around for 129 years. How many centuries does this process take?
- beagle3 11y ago
  Coca Cola is a luxury item. If they raise the price too much, no one will buy it, and that puts an upper limit to the price (and makes consolidation less profitable). And it still may happen if not for antitrust - I'm sure a combined RCPepsiCoca Cola company will be more profitable than three independent ones. The only reason DataPrim price could be hiked was that the people who need it will actually pay for it. Same with ACTH. A captive audience is a wonderful thing -- something Coca Cola would love but doesn't have. There were ~100 car manufacturers 100 years ago, how many are there now? (And cars are not as essential as ACTH) There were tens to hundreds of media companies up until the 1980's. Now, there are essentially six[0]. And if antitrust didn't matter, there would probably be less. Similar things are happening in pharma[0]. It is one aspect of capitalism that's to blame: "free market". If you monopolies are legal (and in a totally free market, they are), then you will get monopolies because they are more effective at extracting rent than competition. we've just seen this happen twice in the pharma market. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_cross-ownership_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_cross-ownership_in_the_U... [1] http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6aad8ebe-e9c0-11e4-b863-00144feab7de.html http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6aad8ebe-e9c0-11e4-b863-00144feab7...
- pixl97 11y ago
  Are you saying Coca Cola is not attempting to get a soft drink monopoly? You should be a convenience store owner and see both the battle between them and Pepsi and the demands they put on their customers for preferred pricing.

JamesBarney 11y ago

Healthcare and pharmaceuticals are not even in the ball park of a normal free market. 1. Monopolies - We give monopolies to pharmaceutical companies to incentivize R&D. 2. Principal-Agent problem - Doctors guide, and make decisions about care for consumers. But However consumers of health care have different incentives than doctors. 3. Insurance - Most individuals are relatively shielded from the costs of their healthcare. 4. Public Good - Many people want to live in a society where people do not die from easily treatable conditions. So yes a free markets is always the optimal solution given a certain set of assumptions. Unfortunately very few of these assumptions are true in healthcare.

collyw 11y ago

Disproven by privatisation of the UK rail industry. I think it's the most expensive in Europe, certainly close. Oh, and the European healthcare systems.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> Naturally regulated markets There is no such thing. "Free markets" presume both particular context (which is not present in any real state, though it can sometimes be approximated) and particular artificial regulation (particular, particular constructions of property rights.) The idea that "naturally regulated markets" is a meaningful concept (much less a meaningful concept with some correspondence with "free markets") is absurd on its face.

jbssm 11y ago

All nice and dandy in theory, clearly disproven by practice. Heath costs and medicine costs in Europe and Canada are lower than in the USA.