A note on market tyranny

[IcarusAngel]

The government is going to make people buy a product in the US, and, worst of all, fine them if they refuse to buy said product. This is essentially economic fascism. In this case, government is being bad, forcing people into a failed (http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/12/24-0) market system. The problem stems from what political scientists call the "revolving door" in politics - the ability of politicians to go to work directly for lobbying groups that represent the interests of the elite to bully their former collegues.

So, in this case, the government is the bad actor. But imagine if a corporation was in charge of a local community or a state, and they decided to force you into a health care plan, like how Wal-Mart and other corporations offer people plans that pay for next to nothing. In that case it is a private actor who is engaging in the bad behavior, and there is no way to recall or reform said private actor; usually when private actors get so big they fail on their own accord or because of new government regulations.

Anyway, the situation by far is always worse with the private actor since they can make up their own laws as they go along and reform always comes from the top to the bottom, not the other way around. This is why dictators - Stalin, Mao, Hitler, etc. - are always private actors or privatized dictatorships, with no public input, and this is where market tyranny leads to.

The point is, as the public loses input in any system, market tyranny or privatized government, things become worse for society overall and thus worse for the individual and the failure of the US to meet halfway with 'private' insurance companies bears this out, and really the whole political paradigm, the left right line, could probably be expressed better as a struggle between keeping resources in the hands of the people versus keeping resources in the hands of privatizated tyrannies (markets or dictators), instead of being measured by how "free" a market is (the standard right-wingers use).

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE=IcarusAngel;1634935]The government is going to make people buy a product in the US, and, worst of all, fine them if they refuse to buy said product. This is essentially economic fascism.

Not enterely true. but the sentiments are valid.


In this case, government is being bad, forcing people into a failed (http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/12/24-0) market system.

Sort of. They are forcing people into a syatem which is successful, but changing the rules which could result in in failure.




So, in this case, the government is the bad actor. But imagine if a corporation was in charge of a local community or a state, and they decided to force you into a health care plan, like how Wal-Mart and other corporations offer people plans that pay for next to nothing. In that case it is a private actor who is engaging in the bad behavior, and there is no way to recall or reform said private actor; usually when private actors get so big they fail on their own accord or because of new government regulations.


The complaint here seems to be that people are forced to purchase private insurance, not that they are forced to purchase insurance. So much for the principled stand against compulsion.



Anyway, the situation by far is always worse with the private actor since they can make up their own laws as they go along and reform always comes from the top to the bottom, not the other way around. This is why dictators - Stalin, Mao, Hitler, etc. - are always private actors or privatized dictatorships, with no public input, and this is where market tyranny leads to.


Considering that the above people were fantastically popular with the people, your claims athat they were "private" individuals is ludicrous.


The point is, as the public loses input in any system, market tyranny

Considering that the market is a reflection of what people whant, the term "market tyranny" more accurately describes the socialist ignorance of capitalism, rather than capiatlism itself.

[IcarusAngel]

The complaint here seems to be that people are forced to purchase private insurance, not that they are forced to purchase insurance. So much for the principled stand against compulsion.

The complaint there was that private actors - not the majority of the people - are the ones making the rules.



Considering that the above people were fantastically popular with the people, your claims athat they were "private" individuals is ludicrous.

The Nazis were popular with the Jews and Stalin was popular with the Kulaks and leftist dissenters, many of whom were in prison?

The Nazis carried out their actions privately as did Stalin. The fact that they weren't "overthrown" by the people of their own countries, just like the fact that people refuse to overthrow market tyranny, actually says more about the dark side of human nature and how it can be manipulated by fear and irrationality than it does about the failure of all of those regimes.

I was obviously talking about where power lies, though.


Considering that the market is a reflection of what people whant, the term "market tyranny" more accurately describes the socialist ignorance of capitalism, rather than capiatlism itself.

Most people do NOT support the corporate consolidation of resources. Most people WANT the alternative of electric cars etc., and when they had the chance purchased them enough so that they could have been produced. Most people WANT quality programming on television. Most people want more control over their lives and most people are NOT happy in their jobs.

So much for "capitalism" giving people what they want. And, since free-markets always lead to consolidation and products that are sold based more on manipulation than on people's true wants, it is accurate to describe it as "market tyranny."

[Kayser_Soso]

Wow that has to be the dumbest rant I've ever seen. Some of it is simply too stupid to address in detail. But indulge me, how is forcing people to buy a product forcing them to support a "failed market system"? From the perspective of those insurance companies, not only have they been successful, but now they are even more successful. The banks, auto industry, etc. are examples of market failure. Health care providers have a natural advantage in the sense that people must have healthcare, which is the reason to support single-payer in the first place.

[IcarusAngel]

If you don't have any reasonable arguments; don't post. Since it is cheaper and more profitable to provide health insure to a minority of the populus than the majority this is what corporations do, leaving millions of Americans uninsured. This means that emergency rooms are flooded in America, leaving the expenses on the hospitals and the local governments. Since well over a majority of these expenses are not repaid, the government has to make it up.

And it is a failure of the 'market system' because the government has been the one funding a majority of the important medical research for years, and always has been. If the market was succeeding, the government wouldn't be involved in the health care industry in the first place, and wouldn't have to require people to buy their health insurance so the government itself doesn't have to pay people's medical bills. On the other side of the reform, the corporate side, the government is forcing insurance companies to insure more people, setting price controls and determing how they can spend some of their revenue.

Only an idiot, ignorant of economics, who doesn't understand the distinction between market and government would call this a "success" of the market.

[Kayser_Soso]

To advocates of the free market, success is measured in profit. So if we are speaking about the healthcare industry, they are succeeding.

[Green Dragon]

Since it is cheaper and more profitable to provide health insure to a minority of the populus than the majority this is what corporations do, leaving millions of Americans uninsured.

MOST Americans have health insurance.
And how do insurance companies (indeed any business) make money by NOT selling their product?


This means that emergency rooms are flooded in America, leaving the expenses on the hospitals and the local governments. Since well over a majority of these expenses are not repaid, the government has to make it up.

As opposed to the government paying all of it for everyone?

[Skooma Addict]

The government is going to make people buy a product in the US, and, worst of all, fine them if they refuse to buy said product. This is essentially economic fascism. In this case, government is being bad, forcing people into a failed (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/12/24-0) market system. The problem stems from what political scientists call the "revolving door" in politics - the ability of politicians to go to work directly for lobbying groups that represent the interests of the elite to bully their former collegues.

"Private" health insurance is as expensive as it is thanks to the government, and the government forcing people to buy a product is not a flaw with the free market. All I see is a flaw with government.


So, in this case, the government is the bad actor. But imagine if a corporation was in charge of a local community or a state, and they decided to force you into a health care plan, like how Wal-Mart and other corporations offer people plans that pay for next to nothing. In that case it is a private actor who is engaging in the bad behavior, and there is no way to recall or reform said private actor; usually when private actors get so big they fail on their own accord or because of new government regulations.

So if a corporation merely offers people plans that you personally don't like, you think this is bad behavior? If you don't want the plan, don't accept it. Private corporations do not force you to do anything.


Anyway, the situation by far is always worse with the private actor since they can make up their own laws as they go along and reform always comes from the top to the bottom, not the other way around. This is why dictators - Stalin, Mao, Hitler, etc. - are always private actors or privatized dictatorships, with no public input, and this is where market tyranny leads to.

Private companies can make up their own laws? Lol. Are you attempting to link dictators such as Mao, Hitler, and Stalin with the free market? Lol.



The point is, as the public loses input in any system, market tyranny or privatized government, things become worse for society overall and thus worse for the individual and the failure of the US to meet halfway with 'private' insurance companies bears this out, and really the whole political paradigm, the left right line, could probably be expressed better as a struggle between keeping resources in the hands of the people versus keeping resources in the hands of privatizated tyrannies (markets or dictators), instead of being measured by how "free" a market is (the standard right-wingers use).

Again, referencing markets and dictators makes no sense. I don't even want to count how many strawmen you created in this post. Also, in the free market, resources are in the hands of "the people." All this post did was show your ignorance.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

"Private" health insurance is as expensive as it is thanks to the government...
Really? How so, exactly? Explain.


...and the government forcing people to buy a product is not a flaw with the free market. All I see is a flaw with government.
It's a flaw with capitalism. Capitalism includes both the market and the existing bourgeois government. They cannot be separated.


So if a corporation merely offers people plans that you personally don't like, you think this is bad behavior? If you don't want the plan, don't accept it. Private corporations do not force you to do anything.
Surely you are familiar with the concept of opportunity cost, Olaf? If a corporation offers plans that I don't like, perhaps the reason I don't like them is because I do not believe the opportunity cost is worth paying. And perhaps the majority of people agree with me. In that case, those plans should not be offered.


Private companies can make up their own laws? Lol. Are you attempting to link dictators such as Mao, Hitler, and Stalin with the free market? Lol.
Of course private companies can make up their own laws. All it takes is a little bribe in the right place.

But speaking of private law, isn't that precisely the kind of lawmaking that you advocate, Olaf?

[Skooma Addict]

Really? How so, exactly? Explain.

http://mises.org/daily/3727


It's a flaw with capitalism. Capitalism includes both the market and the existing bourgeois government. They cannot be separated.

I don't know what you mean by a "bourgeois government." The Bourgeoisie are not a homogeneous group with common clearly defined interests. But there is nothing about capitalism that requires a government. I do not think a government is required for the expansion of the division of labor and the enforcement of private property.


Surely you are familiar with the concept of opportunity cost, Olaf? If a corporation offers plans that I don't like, perhaps the reason I don't like them is because I do not believe the opportunity cost is worth paying. And perhaps the majority of people agree with me. In that case, those plans should not be offered.

Why does the majority get to decide? A business can offer any plan it wants. If you don't like it, don't accept it. Nobody is forcing you to accept the plan. You have no right to stop me from accepting the plan if I think it will further my self interests.


Of course private companies can make up their own laws. All it takes is a little bribe in the right place.

No, private companies cannot make their own laws. The government can grant them privileges though. This should not be controversial.


But speaking of private law, isn't that precisely the kind of lawmaking that you advocate, Olaf?

Depends. I will support a limited government that enforces property rights if I think an adequate transition to private law cannot be made.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

http://mises.org/daily/3727
Ah yes, an article written by a college student. How cute. I guess you couldn't find anyone else to take up the Austrian cause? His arguments are laughably weak - mainly because he does not explain why the outcome of government intervention is, in fact, bad (when compared to the alternative). Here, let me demolish it for you:


While many commentators have been quick to blame the free market for these costs, health insurance in America is not completely "free." For instance, in Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont, there are regulations called "guaranteed issues." These force insurance companies to accept all comers, regardless of preexisting conditions.
Depending on where the market equilibrium lies, this means that either (a) the regulations have no effect, or (b) less people would have insurance in the absence of the regulations. So you admit that the free market would result in less people having health insurance.


Likewise, more than 30 other states have lesser (but very similar) regulations forcing companies to accept all comers. Such regulations allow individuals to buy insurance as soon as they need a given type of high-cost care. This is like letting a driver who causes a major accident purchase the insurance after the accident and expect all his car repair bills to be paid.

In an effort to protect themselves, insurance companies would prefer to then charge more to the person who waited until he became sick to buy insurance. However, some people cannot afford these higher payments, so the government has imposed price controls.
So you are saying that, in a free market, uninsured people with pre-existing conditions would pay higher prices for health insurance (that is the logical conclusion of your whining about the government keeping prices too low). I'm glad we have that sorted out. Next...


With community ratings in effect, an 18-year-old's premium is the same as 60-year-old's. Often, when a young and healthy person sees their premiums rise, he or she drops out of the insurance pool, which then leaves it more full of sick people, again increasing premiums for the remaining members. These community ratings contribute a great deal to the large number of uninsured, and are among the reasons why healthcare in New York and New Jersey is the most expensive in the country.
So the free market would make health insurance cheaper for young people by raising its price for old people. It would make insurance cheaper for the healthy by squeezing more money out of the sick, the infirm, the vulnerable.


Another aspect that keeps insurance prices high is government-mandated coverage. The policies vary, but in some states, people who don't drink alcohol must purchase coverage for alcoholism, nonsmokers must purchase coverage for antismoking programs, non–drug users must purchase coverage for drug-abuse treatment, etc.
Since you're complaining about this, I assume you are implying that, under a free market, people would have less coverage. Good to know.


As I noted before, each state determines the provisions that insurance companies must abide by. This means that the regulators essentially grant monopolies in each state, since insurance licenses must go through them. The barriers to entry in the health-insurance market are thus appalling.
So, in a free market, health insurance companies would not be required to get any sort of license - and thus they would be able to use their extensive asymmetric information to deceive you in a hundred different ways. They could offer coverage will special provisions buried deep in the fine print. They could offer bad coverage that seems good to the untrained eye. They could even do something completely illegal to you, and gamble that you won't be able to afford to hire a lawyer to sue them.

In summary, a free market in health care would mean that:

1. If you developed a medical condition while you were uninsured, you will never be able to get insurance.
2. Health insurance would be more expensive for the people who need it most (the sick, the elderly, etc.)
3. Health insurance would be cheaper for people who don't need it.
4. You would get less coverage.
5. If you can't afford a good lawyer, you are likely to be completely screwed by the insurance companies.

And I got all that from your Mises article defending the free market, Olaf. You people are pathetic.

[Skooma Addict]

Ah yes, an article written by a college student. How cute. I guess you couldn't find anyone else to take up the Austrian cause? His arguments are laughably weak - mainly because he does not explain why the outcome of government intervention is, in fact, bad (when compared to the alternative). Here, let me demolish it for you:

The article was pretty good. It was short and to the point. I am not going to link you an essay that you won't read.



Depending on where the market equilibrium lies, this means that either (a) the regulations have no effect, or (b) less people would have insurance in the absence of the regulations. So you admit that the free market would result in less people having health insurance.

Your reference to equilibrium doesn't make sense. The regulations will have an effect regardless of where equilibrium lies. For example, requiring years of college to become a doctor will reduce the supply and hence increase the price. In absense of regulations, insurance would be cheaper. I don't know for certain if less people would have insurance, but I would not count on it.


So you are saying that, in a free market, uninsured people with pre-existing conditions would pay higher prices for health insurance (that is the logical conclusion of your whining about the government keeping prices too low). I'm glad we have that sorted out. Next...

Obviously yes. For example, I myself would have to pay higher prices than the average citizen (for my age group that is).


So the free market would make health insurance cheaper for young people by raising its price for old people. It would make insurance cheaper for the healthy by squeezing more money out of the sick, the infirm, the vulnerable.

It is not like a young person gets cheaper rates at the expense of older people. Older people are at a higher risk, so their rates will be higher. It would make insurance cheaper for the healthy because they will only have to pay rates which correspond to their risk level. The rates old people pay has nothing to do with the rates young people pay.



Since you're complaining about this, I assume you are implying that, under a free market, people would have less coverage. Good to know.

I would assume so, but I cannot be sure. People who don't want insurance wont be forced to purchase it.


So, in a free market, health insurance companies would not be required to get any sort of license - and thus they would be able to use their extensive asymmetric information to deceive you in a hundred different ways. They could offer coverage will special provisions buried deep in the fine print. They could offer bad coverage that seems good to the untrained eye. They could even do something completely illegal to you, and gamble that you won't be able to afford to hire a lawyer to sue them.

Companies that wanted to go out of business would do that. Companies that wanted to attract customers would not. There is nothing magical about the insurance industry that makes it profitable to discourage customers to purchase their product. As for the legal aspect, whether or not such conduct would be illegal would depend on the society. Although I don't think any laws would even be necessary, I would guess that that people would pay to have them enforced.