4 ms·

> Yes, that's crony capitalism, not a free market. You're getting close to "no true scotsman" territory here. Microsoft abusing its position in the PC market:

> Yes, that's crony capitalism, not a free market. You're getting close to "no true scotsman" territory here. Microsoft abusing its position in the PC market: crony capitalism, not a free market? Intel bullying AMD in the processor market: crony capitalism, not a free market? Are there any examples anywhere in the world of a truly free market then? > "Accident" insurance makes a lot more sense to me, and it's compatible with the idea of insurance (broken arms/trauma/etc.). But even serious illnesses are not really unexpected, because almost everyone gets them -- it's just a question of when. I think all medical expenses should be paid out of pocket. The problem is serious illnesses tend to be the most expensive. Even if health care costs were magically cut in half, cancer treatment would still bankrupt the vast majority of the population. So, tough luck for them? > Basically, well-intentioned people like yourself would benefit people who depend on this drug in the short term, through government intervention, at the expense of innovation in the long term as fewer corporations are attracted by the riches that await them for furthering the medical field and saving people's lives. Yeah... I'm not necessarily convinced that medical research should be a for-profit enterprise either, for exactly the reasons you mention. ("Should we research a cure for this disease?" "Our projections indicate it won't be profitable" "Ok, moving on then...") I get that you believe free markets will solve the problem of expensive health care, I just don't see the mechanism behind it. So far it seems very hand-wavy to me. 1) Free markets. 2) ... 3) Cheap health care. What exactly happens in step 2? How do you prevent it from turning into an abusive "crony capitalism" situation?

lend000 10y ago
> You're getting close to "no true scotsman" territory here. The free market is an ideal -- I do see where you're coming from. But the market is never free so long as there are corruptible people in government or the framework does not fairly protect freedoms, but does that mean we shouldn't strive to get as close to the 'ideal' of a free market? For the Microsoft example in particular, they didn't benefit from government intervention until the government "punished" them, by forcing them to provide a more inclusive platform. Makes you wonder if 90% of the PC market would still belong to Microsoft if the government had not gotten involved... might have pushed us toward open source/Mac OS sooner. In the other case, Intel just plagued AMD with legal bills, which perhaps says something about the way our legal framework is set up (can't countersue to cover legal costs), but Intel always provided a superior product so it's a quite stretch to say it was a "malevolent" monopoly. So you're right, neither of those are really crony capitalist examples, but that doesn't mean they contradict my points on market freedom and ill-willed monopolies. I challenge you to provide an example of a longstanding, malevolent monopoly that did not rely on government privilege. As to the points on medical care, I assume you agree?
- nodamage 10y ago
  I think we need to accept that much like communism is an ideal that might work in small groups (literally communes) but quickly falls apart when dealing with large groups (because people are terrible and will find ways to abuse the system), pure capitalism is also an ideal that might work in small groups but also quickly falls apart when dealing with large groups (because again, people are terrible and will find ways to abuse the system). I think "free markets" will inevitably trend towards "crony capitalism" as long as 1) government exists and consists of, as you say, corruptible people, and 2) money exists, and therefore can be used to influence said corruptible people. Therefore, even if you managed to hit a reset switch and turn health care into a "free market" and ran the experiment over and over again, 100% of the time it will turn back into the same "crony capitalism" mess that we're in now. What can I say, I'm a cynic at heart. And I've already mentioned this, but it also seems kind of silly to advocate for this theoretical experiment (which may not actually be possible to implement) when there are already many other countries around the world that have successfully implemented universal health care (either single-payer or two-tiered systems) with better health outcomes than the US.
  - lend000 10y ago
    Communism is flawed in theory because it relies on people not acting in their own personal interests, which is not a declared assumption (because it would be so ridiculous). The free market you often hear about is sound in theory when it makes clear assumptions about the government, but those assumptions are idealistic because they require government officials to not be persuaded by rent-seekers. But you've taken this way off topic to be honest, because I am not advocating the ultra-pure free market ideal. I am advocating scaling back and reducing the scope of our excessive USDA/FDA (which would cause the same problems in a universal healthcare system regardless), reducing IP protections (same problems regardless of universal healthcare system), making it easier to become a doctor (also a problem regardless of whether we have universal healthcare) and getting rid of our existing lop-sided "universal" healthcare systems which would be irrelevant in a universal health-care system. To my original point, we have the most government distorted healthcare market in the world so it really should not be so surprising that our system is the worst per dollar. You can't just add another "universal healthcare program" and expect all of the problems to go away -- there's a lot of cleanup to do. And even after that cleanup, I think it would be silly to resign ourselves to the mediocrity of other systems instead of seeking progress.

lend000 10y ago

> You're getting close to "no true scotsman" territory here. The free market is an ideal -- I do see where you're coming from. But the market is never free so long as there are corruptible people in government or the framework does not fairly protect freedoms, but does that mean we shouldn't strive to get as close to the 'ideal' of a free market? For the Microsoft example in particular, they didn't benefit from government intervention until the government "punished" them, by forcing them to provide a more inclusive platform. Makes you wonder if 90% of the PC market would still belong to Microsoft if the government had not gotten involved... might have pushed us toward open source/Mac OS sooner. In the other case, Intel just plagued AMD with legal bills, which perhaps says something about the way our legal framework is set up (can't countersue to cover legal costs), but Intel always provided a superior product so it's a quite stretch to say it was a "malevolent" monopoly. So you're right, neither of those are really crony capitalist examples, but that doesn't mean they contradict my points on market freedom and ill-willed monopolies. I challenge you to provide an example of a longstanding, malevolent monopoly that did not rely on government privilege. As to the points on medical care, I assume you agree?

nodamage 10y ago
I think we need to accept that much like communism is an ideal that might work in small groups (literally communes) but quickly falls apart when dealing with large groups (because people are terrible and will find ways to abuse the system), pure capitalism is also an ideal that might work in small groups but also quickly falls apart when dealing with large groups (because again, people are terrible and will find ways to abuse the system). I think "free markets" will inevitably trend towards "crony capitalism" as long as 1) government exists and consists of, as you say, corruptible people, and 2) money exists, and therefore can be used to influence said corruptible people. Therefore, even if you managed to hit a reset switch and turn health care into a "free market" and ran the experiment over and over again, 100% of the time it will turn back into the same "crony capitalism" mess that we're in now. What can I say, I'm a cynic at heart. And I've already mentioned this, but it also seems kind of silly to advocate for this theoretical experiment (which may not actually be possible to implement) when there are already many other countries around the world that have successfully implemented universal health care (either single-payer or two-tiered systems) with better health outcomes than the US.
- lend000 10y ago
  Communism is flawed in theory because it relies on people not acting in their own personal interests, which is not a declared assumption (because it would be so ridiculous). The free market you often hear about is sound in theory when it makes clear assumptions about the government, but those assumptions are idealistic because they require government officials to not be persuaded by rent-seekers. But you've taken this way off topic to be honest, because I am not advocating the ultra-pure free market ideal. I am advocating scaling back and reducing the scope of our excessive USDA/FDA (which would cause the same problems in a universal healthcare system regardless), reducing IP protections (same problems regardless of universal healthcare system), making it easier to become a doctor (also a problem regardless of whether we have universal healthcare) and getting rid of our existing lop-sided "universal" healthcare systems which would be irrelevant in a universal health-care system. To my original point, we have the most government distorted healthcare market in the world so it really should not be so surprising that our system is the worst per dollar. You can't just add another "universal healthcare program" and expect all of the problems to go away -- there's a lot of cleanup to do. And even after that cleanup, I think it would be silly to resign ourselves to the mediocrity of other systems instead of seeking progress.