Private vs. Public Healthcare (was Re: Rand Paul)

[Lyell]

The United States is far from an example of Pure Capitalism. Too much legislation. To be honest however, I don't believe any of the pure economic models function appropriately because of the human factor, (as I've suggested in my view on Communism).

Perhaps the analogy would have been accurate if I had made unhealthy food an option, fat being the end result and weight training being used to curb it. For the record, I've admitted to making poor analogies more than once.

[Xajow]

The end result may not be Pure Capitalism, but that doesn't mean that Pure Capitalism didn't get you there.

Doesn't mean it did either. Calling it pure capitalism doesn't make it so. Let's turn the tables. We could call Stalin's Soviet Union pure socialism. Plenty of people would. Were I a betting man, I'd lay decent odds that saying so would get me at least one post here telling me how it wasn't pure socialism at all. Now I could (wouldn't but could) certainly reply that while the end result might not be pure socialism, that doesn't mean pure socialism didn't get them there. It's all just words. Saying it doesn't make it so. That some corporations did some bad things doesn't mean that such is necessarily and inherently an example of pure capitalism any more than the Soviet Union is an example of pure socialism. Pure capitalism has likely never existed on this planet. And if it had, it would not resemble totalitarianism. And I have been told by several supporters of socialism that socialism is not supposed to resemble Soviet Russia. People who resort to totalitarianism screw things up for everyone, capitalist, socialist or lavender blue dilly dilly. Blaming capitalism (or socialism) for some people being assholes is like blaming hammers for some drivers (or most drivers depending on where you live) not signalling when they turn (the drivers, not the hammers... unless it's the Hebrew Hammer...). You can do it, but that doesn't mean it's a reasonable accusation.

[Will]

All that would honestly prove is that a moderate approach to economics, with some regulation and some free trade, would probably work better than either extreme.

Which I'm good with.

[Callie Del Noire]

Okay, Xajow and Lyell, be honest.

If it wasn't governmental regulations such as the Clean Water Act, the Meat Inspection Act, the Pure Food and Drug act of 1906 and their decedents we'd be relying on the good intent of the corporations, which have been proven to be less than trustworthy then and now.

I know.. you're going to point out that those are OLD cases but even today it's going on. Look into the sheer amount of effort that Mosanto has gone through to hide the evidence on what the use of Bovine Growth Hormone can do to cattle and milk. (they have spent MILLIONS covering their ass here in the US and outright lying).

A good portion of the housing crisis was started by the deregualtion of segments of the Banking industry. The end result might have eventually come about but we let the banks and investment community start it.

It's careful balance between too much and too little regulation but right now the trend is towards too little. And the number of people who benefit is too little.

Relaxed standards have bitten us in the ass again and again. Business has lost a lot of long distance outlook. If it's not going to pay off in a year or two, most don't want to be bothered anymore. Growing up I remember folks at Burlington Industry talking about payoff in a decade or longer for a plant or division. Now.. you don't see that sort of long term planning anymore.

[Xajow]

If it wasn't governmental regulations such as the Clean Water Act, the Meat Inspection Act, the Pure Food and Drug act of 1906 and their decedents we'd be relying on the good intent of the corporations, which have been proven to be less than trustworthy then and now.

I know.. you're going to point out that those are OLD cases but even today it's going on. Look into the sheer amount of effort that Mosanto has gone through to hide the evidence on what the use of Bovine Growth Hormone can do to cattle and milk. (they have spent MILLIONS covering their ass here in the US and outright lying).

So do you think the people who run corporations this it's okay for lots of their customers to die?

A good portion of the housing crisis was started by the deregualtion of segments of the Banking industry. The end result might have eventually come about but we let the banks and investment community start it.

As I understand it, a major contributor was government pressure to create "affordable housing" for which banks and developers got favorable ratings from the government.

Relaxed standards have bitten us in the ass again and again. Business has lost a lot of long distance outlook. If it's not going to pay off in a year or two, most don't want to be bothered anymore. Growing up I remember folks at Burlington Industry talking about payoff in a decade or longer for a plant or division. Now.. you don't see that sort of long term planning anymore.

How can businesses plan for a long term result when the laws and rules keep changing every time someone decides to try to buy some votes with laws that provide more or less regulation?

[Callie Del Noire]

Okay, since I didn't clearly state it in my prior post (my apologies)

Is it in the public good, despite prior bad backs by many corporations, to diminish regulation to the point that industry is essentially self-regulating.

For example, the continued efforts to hide the effects of Bovine Growth Hormone by Mosanto in the milk industry. Up to and including efforts to ban labeling practices that distinguishing between milk makes that use it and not. Not to mention their past actions like the development of the Terminator series of seed development (which would chain farmers to them forever) and other genetically modifed organisms without revealing the impact that they have on the environment or such.

Do they sound like someone you want to work unregulated? Or for the matter have the impact and influence they have already?

I'm all for big business, having grown up benefiting from my father's work in textile and working most of my adult life as a member of one of the biggest clients of big business (the Military) but they are not going to effectively self regulate themselves.

Do I think big business will let customers die in the pursuit of the bottom line. Absolutely, that is what cost-benefit studies are for. How many people have to die or get hurt before they change something.

The problem is US Business has lost focus and is totally focused on profit. Immediate and short term.

Explain to me, for example, how the US can be the biggest innovator of internet technology and yet our internet backbone (the ORIGINAL backbone) yet not even be in the top five nations on infrastructure for the internet. Almost every major company in the industry has roots in the US yet we lag behind.

Shortsightedness and a drive for profit over a proper business plan. American companies bought into Gordon Gecko's lie and we've been paying for it ever since.

[consortium11]

Just a few points here.

1) "Company towns" are an issue with monopolies and "pure" capitalism... something Mises himself (basically the economic forefather of the Austrian school and most Libertarian economic theories) accepts, especially in areas with natural resources (such as a coal or mining town). That said, it's not as if all company towns were an unmitigated evil; many were leading examples of progressive town planning which actually improved the conditions of the workers there. Even the infamous Pullman town enabled its workers to have a higher standard of living than they would have otherwise expected.

2) On the healthcare debate itself I fully understand that the Obamacare "compulsory insurance" is far from a popular option on any side of the debate. That said my admiration for the Swiss system (which also requires compulsory health insurance) is near boundless. It may not be completely Libertarian because of Government interference but for a major economy it's pretty close... and it does well at all attempts to rank it. The WHO rankings last published in 2000 rated it 20th in the world (above the likes of Sweden, Germany, Finland and Canada). I also think the system used in Singapore is worth a look... another system that fuses public and private but with most of the emphasis on private.

3) With regards to regulations it's worth noting that the market came up with a solution to that (at least with regards to consumer goods). Branding. People bought brands rather than whatever else was on offer because brands were a guarantee of a certain level of quality (both of safety and the good itself) and that lasts to this day; people buy goods because of the strength of the brand (albeit one aided by marketing) and if a brand doesn't live up to those expectations it normally fails as the consumers moved to something else. Look at Coke's attempts to sell bottled water in the UK with Dasani. In the space of about 2 weeks it fell apart (and barely a month after it was launched)... first it was revealed that it was just tap water (a common occurrence in bottled water products but not one you want advertised), then it was revealed the "highly sophisticated purification process", based on Nasa spacecraft technology, was in fact reverse osmosis used in many modest domestic water purification units and then finally it was discovered that in trying to change the "taste profile" they were pumping oxide into it, turning the bromide (contained in the calcium carbonate they previously pumped into it) which turned the non-harmful bromide into the cancer causing bromate. The brand never recovered and was quickly withdrawn... and was never launched across the rest of Continental Europe. It's also a solid example of how a strong brand can help... a lesser company could have been completely destroyed by that (or at least in the UK) but because of Coke's strong reputation for its other products is survived.

[Lyell]

Okay, Xajow and Lyell, be honest.

I think you have my intent confused if you're lumping me together with Xajow. I am not for or against any particular model and I have stated that I do not believe any "Pure" economic model works in real practice, I was however attempting to convey that a single company town does not fit the Pure Capitalism model and equating it with such was misrepresenting the ideals behind it.

If it wasn't governmental regulations such as the Clean Water Act, the Meat Inspection Act, the Pure Food and Drug act of 1906 and their decedents we'd be relying on the good intent of the corporations, which have been proven to be less than trustworthy then and now.

I know.. you're going to point out that those are OLD cases but even today it's going on. Look into the sheer amount of effort that Mosanto has gone through to hide the evidence on what the use of Bovine Growth Hormone can do to cattle and milk. (they have spent MILLIONS covering their ass here in the US and outright lying).

You'll be happy to know I have no objection to legislation and enforcement of legislation intended to protect the consumer and/or other companies from the bad practices of another company.

A good portion of the housing crisis was started by the deregualtion of segments of the Banking industry. The end result might have eventually come about but we let the banks and investment community start it.

I do however have a problem with legislation that practically requires a business to make poor investment decisions. A contributing factor to the housing crisis that is often overlooked was the decision to practically require banks to fill a quota of loans to minorities. To meet the government demands and avoid punishment, banks had to give loans to applicants incapable of paying them back. (That is not to say however that all minorities fit into that category, but enough that applied for loans did.)

It's careful balance between too much and too little regulation but right now the trend is towards too little. And the number of people who benefit is too little.

Relaxed standards have bitten us in the ass again and again. Business has lost a lot of long distance outlook. If it's not going to pay off in a year or two, most don't want to be bothered anymore. Growing up I remember folks at Burlington Industry talking about payoff in a decade or longer for a plant or division. Now.. you don't see that sort of long term planning anymore.

Factors have no doubt changed immensely from when you were a child. I know they have for me. International factors, market stability (or lack thereof) and economic turbulence make long forecasts difficult to predict or justify. I don't exactly have a time machine, but if it were possible to step back in time to another point that resembles the economic situation we're in now, you'd probably see a similar degradation of business outlook prior to when its depression started.

[Xajow]

I think you have my intent confused if you're lumping me together with Xajow. I am not for or against any particular model and I have stated that I do not believe any "Pure" economic model works in real practice,

In my defense, I have not ever stated that I believe any "pure" economic model works in practice. But then, one has never been put into practice. There are two reasons for this. One, few folks if any are going to agree 100% on what would be a "pure" economic model in practice would be. Two, there would be people involved, and, as we all know, people tend to be fallible. So let's lay to rest any notion that I'm somehow advocating for some pure anything to be put into practice. 'Cause I ain't. Thank you, and good night.

[Will]

I think that's getting away from the actual point anyway, that being that under-regulated capitalism is most likely to lead to monopolies and corporate abuse.  Whether it's "pure" or not doesn't really matter.

[Xajow]

Glad someone else thinks so.

Now we can all disagree on what constitutes "under-regulated" capitalism.