4 ms·

Burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Thats you.

by srdev 13y ago

FellowTraveler 13y ago
Okay let's compare the financial industry with, say, the software industry... The financial industry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_financial_regulatory_authorities_by_country http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_financial_regulatory_au... The software industry: [Google] No results found for "list of software development regulatory bodies by country".
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  Not sure if you're serious or trolling. How about comparing the financial industry with some other closely regulated industry, such as pharmaceuticals or healthcare? Seems to me that it's rather easier to become a fund manager than a doctor, for example. Likewise the setup costs and regulatory burden of running a hedge fund seem rather lower than those of bringing a new drug to market.
  - FellowTraveler 13y ago
    > How about comparing the financial industry with some other closely regulated industry, such as pharmaceuticals or healthcare? In fact, this is my whole point: that finance (and healthcare) are heavily-regulated, and that this is precisely the cause of their problems. You could never claim that our healthcare problems are the result of a free market, because there is no free market in healthcare -- just a giant cartel of heavily-regulated (protected) bureaucracies. Similarly, you could never claim that our monetary issues are the result of a free market, because there is no free market in money.
    - anigbrowl 13y ago
      I think you need to rethink your definition of what constitutes a free market; at present it seems to be 'one where all participants are free to do anything.' That's superficially attractive but it's hard for it to be efficient due to information asymmetries, and a market that is inefficient is one which people are reluctant to enter and whose growth is thus limited. You could never claim that our healthcare problems are the result of a free market, because there is no free market in healthcare -- just a giant cartel of heavily-regulated (protected) bureaucracies. Well, I wasn't making that claim, but you appear to have a curiously binary view of these things. Healthcare in Europe, where I'm from, is in many ways far less competitive and far more heavily regulated, yet Europeans seem to have better outcomes despite lower public expenditure on healthcare. I attribute this primarily to the information asymmetries mentioned above.
      - FellowTraveler 13y ago
        > I think you need to rethink your definition of what constitutes a free market; at present it seems to be 'one where all participants are free to do anything.' My definition would be, "one without violence and coercion, enabling decisions to be made based on voluntary choices." > Healthcare in Europe, where I'm from, is in many ways far less competitive and far more heavily regulated, yet Europeans seem to have better outcomes despite lower public expenditure on healthcare. "Competitive" ? I know a doctor in Alaska who was aghast at the high prices charged by the monopoly hospital in his region. He decided to open a surgery center, so as to offer better service at lower prices. Unfortunately he discovered that competition is illegal. You cannot open operating rooms, you see, without first obtaining a "certificate of need" from the State, certifying that your community "needs" more operating rooms. And of course, such certificates are never actually handed out, since the state boards are always manned by hospital flunkies. Does that sound like a free market to you? There is no competition in American health care. I'm also surprised at your characterization of European health care as being "far more heavily regulated" in contrast to American health care. You must not realize just how heavily regulated American health care is. The American health care system is a combination of socialism and fascism, and has been for quite some time. It features all manner of central planning, forced subsidies, regional monopolies, welfare programs, hospitals and insurance "companies" protected from any competition by legislation, unfunded mandates, price charts, and tax authorities. The problems of health care in America are the problems of socialism and fascism, because that is what we practice. We do not have the benefits of the free market because we do not have a free market. > yet Europeans seem to have better outcomes Saying that Europeans have "better outcomes" than Americans (with regards to health care) is like saying that Cubans have "better food" than North Koreans. You are comparing two authoritarian systems, neither of which have any semblance of a free market. Coercion does not innovate -- it does not lower prices, nor does it improve service. Even in Europe: "While Sweden is a first world country, its health care system - at least in regards to access - is closer to the third world. Because the health care system is heavily-funded and operated by the government, the system is plagued with waiting lists for surgery. Those waiting lists increase patients' anxiety, pain and risk of death." http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA555_Sweden_Health_Care.html http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA555_Sweden_Health_Care.html

Burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Thats you.

by srdev 13y ago

Burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Thats you.

Okay let's compare the financial industry with, say, the software industry... The financial industry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_financial_regulatory_authorities_by_country http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_financial_regulatory_au... The software industry: [Google] No results found for "list of software development regulatory bodies by country".

anigbrowl 13y ago
Not sure if you're serious or trolling. How about comparing the financial industry with some other closely regulated industry, such as pharmaceuticals or healthcare? Seems to me that it's rather easier to become a fund manager than a doctor, for example. Likewise the setup costs and regulatory burden of running a hedge fund seem rather lower than those of bringing a new drug to market.
- FellowTraveler 13y ago
  > How about comparing the financial industry with some other closely regulated industry, such as pharmaceuticals or healthcare? In fact, this is my whole point: that finance (and healthcare) are heavily-regulated, and that this is precisely the cause of their problems. You could never claim that our healthcare problems are the result of a free market, because there is no free market in healthcare -- just a giant cartel of heavily-regulated (protected) bureaucracies. Similarly, you could never claim that our monetary issues are the result of a free market, because there is no free market in money.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    I think you need to rethink your definition of what constitutes a free market; at present it seems to be 'one where all participants are free to do anything.' That's superficially attractive but it's hard for it to be efficient due to information asymmetries, and a market that is inefficient is one which people are reluctant to enter and whose growth is thus limited. You could never claim that our healthcare problems are the result of a free market, because there is no free market in healthcare -- just a giant cartel of heavily-regulated (protected) bureaucracies. Well, I wasn't making that claim, but you appear to have a curiously binary view of these things. Healthcare in Europe, where I'm from, is in many ways far less competitive and far more heavily regulated, yet Europeans seem to have better outcomes despite lower public expenditure on healthcare. I attribute this primarily to the information asymmetries mentioned above.
    - FellowTraveler 13y ago
      > I think you need to rethink your definition of what constitutes a free market; at present it seems to be 'one where all participants are free to do anything.' My definition would be, "one without violence and coercion, enabling decisions to be made based on voluntary choices." > Healthcare in Europe, where I'm from, is in many ways far less competitive and far more heavily regulated, yet Europeans seem to have better outcomes despite lower public expenditure on healthcare. "Competitive" ? I know a doctor in Alaska who was aghast at the high prices charged by the monopoly hospital in his region. He decided to open a surgery center, so as to offer better service at lower prices. Unfortunately he discovered that competition is illegal. You cannot open operating rooms, you see, without first obtaining a "certificate of need" from the State, certifying that your community "needs" more operating rooms. And of course, such certificates are never actually handed out, since the state boards are always manned by hospital flunkies. Does that sound like a free market to you? There is no competition in American health care. I'm also surprised at your characterization of European health care as being "far more heavily regulated" in contrast to American health care. You must not realize just how heavily regulated American health care is. The American health care system is a combination of socialism and fascism, and has been for quite some time. It features all manner of central planning, forced subsidies, regional monopolies, welfare programs, hospitals and insurance "companies" protected from any competition by legislation, unfunded mandates, price charts, and tax authorities. The problems of health care in America are the problems of socialism and fascism, because that is what we practice. We do not have the benefits of the free market because we do not have a free market. > yet Europeans seem to have better outcomes Saying that Europeans have "better outcomes" than Americans (with regards to health care) is like saying that Cubans have "better food" than North Koreans. You are comparing two authoritarian systems, neither of which have any semblance of a free market. Coercion does not innovate -- it does not lower prices, nor does it improve service. Even in Europe: "While Sweden is a first world country, its health care system - at least in regards to access - is closer to the third world. Because the health care system is heavily-funded and operated by the government, the system is plagued with waiting lists for surgery. Those waiting lists increase patients' anxiety, pain and risk of death." http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA555_Sweden_Health_Care.html http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA555_Sweden_Health_Care.html