Tell me... Did you use public education? How about public roads? Public utilities? Eat food made in the USA? BREATHE THE FUCKING AIR?! If so, then you should feel morally bankrupt, as you are a direct beneficiary of "theft".
No, seriously though? If you think taxation is theft, then you're wrong and there's nothing to talk about; you're simply not worth debating.
It's rather entertaining in a very sad way to sit here and watch you wave your arms around and scream out ad hominem attacks instead of making well thought out arguments on the topic.
Do you have any clue what an "ad hominem attack" is? That's two threads in which you've used the term completely incorrectly.
If so, then you should feel morally bankrupt, as you are a direct beneficiary of "theft".
There we go. There was no need to attack the person directly by asserting their lack of morals. Instead of simply showing the fault of the argument and moving on they decided to point out the flaw then make an attack on the character of the poster.
Well, which nation is rated the most competative by the EU in Europe?
Why, the only one listed as a "free" on the Index of economic freedom, Switzerland.
Making and maintaining a monopoly is very difficult feet without government intervention on the side of company. Comcast only has a monopoly on TV and internet services by lobbying into that position, even though many of these areas had local internet providers that actually provided a better service.
If a company gets to big and doesn't die natrualy, I will accept the government splitting the company into several. That is as far, however, I think most government regulations should go.
Also, Libertarianism is more than about economic policies, so I don't like how the OC seams to be pretending that is all it is about.
Either I did a poor job explaining myself or you didn't read the entire post.
My point was that some industries (impoartant ones) can be described as industries with high entry costs and falling marginal costs, in the sense that the more you produce the cheaper it gets to produce the next unit. These industries will become monopolys over time, since one firm in the industry will at some point get a small advantedge which it exploit.
My point was that free market economics will not stop a few individuals from getting a huge amount of wealth. But we do not need to have this discussion since you agree that governement intervention is a good thing.
Imthatguy: I have a question for the 'Libertarians' here on the escapist, particularly the american flavor of them. Why does your party and/or vein of political thought equate the ability to amass ungodly sums of money with liberty?
My response is to ask you "why do you not"?
Liberty is the ability to determine your own course. If you want to "amass ungodly sums of money", then why should you be prevented from doing so?
Not G. Ivingname: Free market economics is actually detromential to getting obscene amounts of wealth. If the market was truly free, staying rich and keeping the largest company would be very, VERY difficult, since new businesses are constantly popping up to challenge the big boys. I cannot even begin to count the amount of regulations that actually make it easier for a tiny few companies to be able to sit happily and let the government stop new competition from sprouting up and challenging them.
Yes, this would explain why so many mom-and-pop stores are selling their products cheaper than Wal-Mart. Oh. Wait. Hang on a sec. That doesn't happen. Do I really have to explain why?
Look, I'm sorry, but there's simply no denying it. Even without all the regulations and government interventions in place, the basic overview is undeniably stacked into a pyramid scheme - wealth flows uphill, not down.
Yes, because I cannot even fathom any store that competes Wall Mart at any level and leave you no alternatives but to shop there...
Except Target, Best Buy, Safeway, Amazon.com, Costo, and a thousand others of various sizes
Wall Mart does not have a complete and utter monopoly. Yes, it can, for short periods, sell things at cheaper prices than it's competition. However, they also have a repetition of being a horrible, horrible company, since having customer loyality often does have more economic worth.
Yes, Wallmart is a huge company. You want it to stop being so huge? Stop shopping there, the government isn't going to do anything to stop it. Wallmart can, will, and do just lobby away any objections. Opening the door for the government to more directly control the economy is a two way street with companies directly influencing the government.
Wallmart can sell goods cheaply because it benefits from Chinese workers not being allowed to collectively bargain for better wages and from Chinese firms not having to comply with environmental regulations (and thereby poisoning Chinese people). In short, Wallmart's low prices come from repression.
Tell me... Did you use public education? How about public roads? Public utilities? Eat food made in the USA? BREATHE THE FUCKING AIR?! If so, then you should feel morally bankrupt, as you are a direct beneficiary of "theft".
No, seriously though? If you think taxation is theft, then you're wrong and there's nothing to talk about; you're simply not worth debating.
It's rather entertaining in a very sad way to sit here and watch you wave your arms around and scream out ad hominem attacks instead of making well thought out arguments on the topic.
That's the second time you've (incorrectly) accused Stagnant of using ad hominem attacks. Rather than just throw out the names of fallacies to make yourself sound smart I suggest you go look up what ad hominems actually are, come back and try again.
Tell me... Did you use public education? How about public roads? Public utilities? Eat food made in the USA? BREATHE THE FUCKING AIR?! If so, then you should feel morally bankrupt, as you are a direct beneficiary of "theft".
No, seriously though? If you think taxation is theft, then you're wrong and there's nothing to talk about; you're simply not worth debating.
It's rather entertaining in a very sad way to sit here and watch you wave your arms around and scream out ad hominem attacks instead of making well thought out arguments on the topic.
That's the second time you've (incorrectly) accused Stagnant of using ad hominem attacks. Rather than just throw out the names of fallacies to make yourself sound smart I suggest you go look up what ad hominems actually are, come back and try again.
the ad-hominems they're everywhere! oh my god! (i better note that im being sarcastic)
It's rather entertaining in a very sad way to sit here and watch you wave your arms around and scream out ad hominem attacks instead of making well thought out arguments on the topic.
That's the second time you've (incorrectly) accused Stagnant of using ad hominem attacks. Rather than just throw out the names of fallacies to make yourself sound smart I suggest you go look up what ad hominems actually are, come back and try again.
the ad-hominems they're everywhere! oh my god! (i better note that im being sarcastic)
We're gonna create an ad hominem paradox that will rip a whole in the universe and punch through to the lizard dimension!
Yes, this would explain why so many mom-and-pop stores are selling their products cheaper than Wal-Mart. Oh. Wait. Hang on a sec. That doesn't happen. Do I really have to explain why?
Look, I'm sorry, but there's simply no denying it. Even without all the regulations and government interventions in place, the basic overview is undeniably stacked into a pyramid scheme - wealth flows uphill, not down.
Yes, because I cannot even fathom any store that competes Wall Mart at any level and leave you no alternatives but to shop there...
Except Target, Best Buy, Safeway, Amazon.com, Costo, and a thousand others of various sizes
Wall Mart does not have a complete and utter monopoly. Yes, it can, for short periods, sell things at cheaper prices than it's competition. However, they also have a repetition of being a horrible, horrible company, since having customer loyality often does have more economic worth.
Yes, Wallmart is a huge company. You want it to stop being so huge? Stop shopping there, the government isn't going to do anything to stop it. Wallmart can, will, and do just lobby away any objections. Opening the door for the government to more directly control the economy is a two way street with companies directly influencing the government.
Wallmart can sell goods cheaply because it benefits from Chinese workers not being allowed to collectively bargain for better wages and from Chinese firms not having to comply with environmental regulations (and thereby poisoning Chinese people). In short, Wallmart's low prices come from repression.
the fuck? while i do not believe walmart to be a paragon of ethics, i cannot sit here and allow this bullshit to be spread. walmart charges cheaper because they get better deals from their suppliers (not all of which are chinese sweatshops as you imply). now after they get their product at a good price they find out how much they can charge to maximize profit while still being able to afford their workers and benefits. walmart is a large company thats been around for years, they are a master of maximizing profits and keeping good with supply and demand. not to mention they probably have a very skilled team of accountants and analyst.
Then just how much do you plan on increasing taxes? Increasing taxes too much does not promote economic recovery, though it's not like that is too far away at this point.
Well actually, no. The US already spends more than any other country in the world on healthcare. Socialized medicine would provide a better service for less money. Your healthcare system is backwards, you need to change it.
Not G. Ivingname: Free market economics is actually detromential to getting obscene amounts of wealth. If the market was truly free, staying rich and keeping the largest company would be very, VERY difficult, since new businesses are constantly popping up to challenge the big boys. I cannot even begin to count the amount of regulations that actually make it easier for a tiny few companies to be able to sit happily and let the government stop new competition from sprouting up and challenging them.
Utter, total, complete fantasy. If the market was "totally free", the only outcome is monopoly, whether through one corporate entity completely obliterating all competition, or through price-fixing consortia. Fucking hell, people say Communists are fantasists who take no account of human behaviour in reality; ladies and gentlemen I give you Libertarian economics, so fantastical it belongs in a Disney movie.
Imthatguy: I have a question for the 'Libertarians' here on the escapist, particularly the american flavor of them. Why does your party and/or vein of political thought equate the ability to amass ungodly sums of money with liberty?
My response is to ask you "why do you not"?
Liberty is the ability to determine your own course. If you want to "amass ungodly sums of money", then why should you be prevented from doing so?
You should be prevented from amassing ungodly sums of money when the process and result of doing so is sufficiently injurious to everyone else's liberty.
Imthatguy: I have a question for the 'Libertarians' here on the escapist, particularly the american flavor of them. Why does your party and/or vein of political thought equate the ability to amass ungodly sums of money with liberty?
My response is to ask you "why do you not"?
Liberty is the ability to determine your own course. If you want to "amass ungodly sums of money", then why should you be prevented from doing so?
You should be prevented from amassing ungodly sums of money when the process and result of doing so is sufficiently injurious to everyone else's liberty.
Agema highlights my point very well. This can be found all through out history from forgotten kings to the robber barons of the early 20th century. Only in today's world does the capitalist class attempt to cover the facts in order to protect themselves.
Not G. Ivingname: Free market economics is actually detromential to getting obscene amounts of wealth. If the market was truly free, staying rich and keeping the largest company would be very, VERY difficult, since new businesses are constantly popping up to challenge the big boys. I cannot even begin to count the amount of regulations that actually make it easier for a tiny few companies to be able to sit happily and let the government stop new competition from sprouting up and challenging them.
Utter, total, complete fantasy. If the market was "totally free", the only outcome is monopoly, whether through one corporate entity completely obliterating all competition, or through price-fixing consortia. Fucking hell, people say Communists are fantasists who take no account of human behaviour in reality; ladies and gentlemen I give you Libertarian economics, so fantastical it belongs in a Disney movie.
Except that once you have a monopoly or price fixing the market is no longer free. "Totally free" does not mean "totally unregulated."
Like all those companies making new operating systems to compete with Microsoft? Or all the new power companies springing up to put up their own power-lines?
Look up the concept of 'barriers to entry', then get back to us on this.
(And Captcha says "pearly gates". Stop trying to drag religion into this, Cap.)
Fair to note that the definition of the term free market includes an assumption of insignificant barriers to entry, and that goods produced are essentially a commodity (that is that any given producer and any other given producer's products are essentially interchangeable.
PC operating systems are not a free market. Nor is anything that requires running pipes or lines, due to the nature of running pipes and lines. The former is an example of something that *could* be (the Linux world resembles a free market much more). The latter is an example of something that really can't be (short of the government claiming all of the lines and pipes and letting whatever company wants to sell service over them have the right to do so).
Like all those companies making new operating systems to compete with Microsoft? Or all the new power companies springing up to put up their own power-lines?
Look up the concept of 'barriers to entry', then get back to us on this.
(And Captcha says "pearly gates". Stop trying to drag religion into this, Cap.)
Fair to note that the definition of the term free market includes an assumption of insignificant barriers to entry, and that goods produced are essentially a commodity (that is that any given producer and any other given producer's products are essentially interchangeable.
PC operating systems are not a free market. Nor is anything that requires running pipes or lines, due to the nature of running pipes and lines. The former is an example of something that *could* be (the Linux world resembles a free market much more). The latter is an example of something that really can't be (short of the government claiming all of the lines and pipes and letting whatever company wants to sell service over them have the right to do so).
"The Free Market is a bit like Yog-Sothoth: Neither currently exists in this universe, but the cultists of both are okay with the human sacrifices they think they'll need to make them manifest."
Not G. Ivingname: Free market economics is actually detromential to getting obscene amounts of wealth. If the market was truly free, staying rich and keeping the largest company would be very, VERY difficult, since new businesses are constantly popping up to challenge the big boys. I cannot even begin to count the amount of regulations that actually make it easier for a tiny few companies to be able to sit happily and let the government stop new competition from sprouting up and challenging them.
Utter, total, complete fantasy. If the market was "totally free", the only outcome is monopoly, whether through one corporate entity completely obliterating all competition, or through price-fixing consortia. Fucking hell, people say Communists are fantasists who take no account of human behaviour in reality; ladies and gentlemen I give you Libertarian economics, so fantastical it belongs in a Disney movie.
Except that once you have a monopoly or price fixing the market is no longer free. "Totally free" does not mean "totally unregulated."
a total free market economy (laissez faire) is self regulating, and has no government regulation. while a free market economy has severely low barriers to entry being successful is gonna be hard.
Yes, because I cannot even fathom any store that competes Wall Mart at any level and leave you no alternatives but to shop there...
Except Target, Best Buy, Safeway, Amazon.com, Costo, and a thousand others of various sizes
Wall Mart does not have a complete and utter monopoly. Yes, it can, for short periods, sell things at cheaper prices than it's competition. However, they also have a repetition of being a horrible, horrible company, since having customer loyality often does have more economic worth.
Yes, Wallmart is a huge company. You want it to stop being so huge? Stop shopping there, the government isn't going to do anything to stop it. Wallmart can, will, and do just lobby away any objections. Opening the door for the government to more directly control the economy is a two way street with companies directly influencing the government.
Wallmart can sell goods cheaply because it benefits from Chinese workers not being allowed to collectively bargain for better wages and from Chinese firms not having to comply with environmental regulations (and thereby poisoning Chinese people). In short, Wallmart's low prices come from repression.
the fuck? while i do not believe walmart to be a paragon of ethics, i cannot sit here and allow this bullshit to be spread. walmart charges cheaper because they get better deals from their suppliers (not all of which are chinese sweatshops as you imply). now after they get their product at a good price they find out how much they can charge to maximize profit while still being able to afford their workers and benefits. walmart is a large company thats been around for years, they are a master of maximizing profits and keeping good with supply and demand. not to mention they probably have a very skilled team of accountants and analyst.
OK, but you would agree then that Walmart's great prices, at least on their goods sourced in China,are the result of the repression of Chinese workers and environmental destruction, not the result of canny business practices? BTW, Walmart's inventory of stock produced in China is expected to reach $18 billion this year, up 20% from last year. I like low prices, too, but I'm not willing to screw over other people just to save a few bucks. captcha-cold feet Yes, I have cold feet about shopping at a company like Walmart.
Except that once you have a monopoly or price fixing the market is no longer free. "Totally free" does not mean "totally unregulated."
So long as the monopolistic company achieves monopoly via the market and there is no non-market barrier to new competitors arising, I don't see any immediate reason to say it's not a free market.
You are right about how expensive our medical system is, but we also have the best care, if you can afford it. This is why I am willing to entertain the idea of socialized insurance, as that would mean that people would all be able to afford the care. The other parts of the industry should be left alone except for possibly having the government provide generic drugs and eliminate the AMA'a stranglehold over the education system for doctors.
Not G. Ivingname: Free market economics is actually detromential to getting obscene amounts of wealth. If the market was truly free, staying rich and keeping the largest company would be very, VERY difficult, since new businesses are constantly popping up to challenge the big boys. I cannot even begin to count the amount of regulations that actually make it easier for a tiny few companies to be able to sit happily and let the government stop new competition from sprouting up and challenging them.
As long as government is allowed to intervene to eliminate outside market forces such as monopolies, yo are correct. If not, then you are very wrong and have a piss poor definition of capitalism.
Except that once you have a monopoly or price fixing the market is no longer free. "Totally free" does not mean "totally unregulated."
So long as the monopolistic company achieves monopoly via the market and there is no non-market barrier to new competitors arising, I don't see any immediate reason to say it's not a free market.
Well. Does "free" mean "not controlled by a government" or "not controlled by anyone at all"? That's the crux of the issue I think. If a monopoly is established, that monopoly does control the market to an extent. That monopoly will try to do its damnest to stay ahead and not let anyone contest.
If we wanted a market to work as you put it, with no non-market barriers, that market would have to be completely detached and separate from everything. Lobbying should not be allowed. Private donations to campaigns should not be allowed. Basically, a business should not be allowed to affect anything but itself and other businesses, and it should only be allowed to affect other businesses directly, with all indirect means of influence taken away.
The moment a business can establish any extent of an indirect influence over the market, I would argue that market is not free, since someone is pulling the strings from outside it. And at this point I'm kind of tempted to say "So much for the fabled invisible hand."
Like all those companies making new operating systems to compete with Microsoft? Or all the new power companies springing up to put up their own power-lines?
Look up the concept of 'barriers to entry', then get back to us on this.
(And Captcha says "pearly gates". Stop trying to drag religion into this, Cap.)
Fair to note that the definition of the term free market includes an assumption of insignificant barriers to entry, and that goods produced are essentially a commodity (that is that any given producer and any other given producer's products are essentially interchangeable.
PC operating systems are not a free market. Nor is anything that requires running pipes or lines, due to the nature of running pipes and lines. The former is an example of something that *could* be (the Linux world resembles a free market much more). The latter is an example of something that really can't be (short of the government claiming all of the lines and pipes and letting whatever company wants to sell service over them have the right to do so).
"The Free Market is a bit like Yog-Sothoth: Neither currently exists in this universe, but the cultists of both are okay with the human sacrifices they think they'll need to make them manifest."
I disagree. The cultists that believe that they are the cultists of the free market are actually serving something else entirely. The cultists of the actual free market realize that it can't exist in any stable form in the first place -- free market capitalism inherently destroys free markets.
As for my master, who is the Key and the Gate, every bit of knowledge one acquires drives him ever closer, all it requires is one who can see the door for what it is -- our inability as a species to unify our assorted knowledge, the inability to see the "glue" that holds things together is our blessing.
"The Free Market is a bit like Yog-Sothoth: Neither currently exists in this universe, but the cultists of both are okay with the human sacrifices they think they'll need to make them manifest."
I disagree. The cultists that believe that they are the cultists of the free market are actually serving something else entirely. The cultists of the actual free market realize that it can't exist in any stable form in the first place -- free market capitalism inherently destroys free markets.
As for my master, who is the Key and the Gate, every bit of knowledge one acquires drives him ever closer, all it requires is one who can see the door for what it is -- our inability as a species to unify our assorted knowledge, the inability to see the "glue" that holds things together is our blessing.
I think the free market is more in the vein of Azathoth blind and consuming anything that catches its attention.
It is not freedom when someone who is smart enough to amass great wealth isn't able to do so because of regulations.
Some people may claim they work harder than any millionaire. It's not about working harder but working smarter and providing a better service to the world. If you dig latrines for a living, you may have worked harder than Bill Gates, but he created a product that revolutionized the world and is being used by hundreds of millions of people and also started a company that employs thousands and generates mass amounts of taxable wealth, an you dig a hole for people to $%#@ in.
Revnak: You are right about how expensive our medical system is, but we also have the best care, if you can afford it.
Yeah, except barely anybody can afford it and a simple broken bone can leave a person or family bankrupt because of the extremely high costs. Socialized insurance might limit that but it won't solve it. A system like Australia's or Germany's would work much better. Less costs, better healthcare. What's there not to love?
Revnak: You are right about how expensive our medical system is, but we also have the best care, if you can afford it.
Yeah, except barely anybody can afford it and a simple broken bone can leave a person or family bankrupt because of the extremely high costs. Socialized insurance might limit that but it won't solve it. A system like Australia's or Germany's would work much better. Less costs, better healthcare. What's there not to love?
WHAT? Of course it would solve the problem, they wouldn't be the ones paying for their medical care. And what's not to love? The loss of every advantage that America's system currently has for one. You want adequate care, I want exceptional. I want us to have the very best equipment, the very best doctors, the very best medicine and treatments. Totally socialized medicine means that all of these will be lost. Make the state pay the costs and eliminate a few costs through the methods previously mentioned. Maybe limit copyrights on drugs to a few years, no more than five.
Revnak: You are right about how expensive our medical system is, but we also have the best care, if you can afford it.
Yeah, except barely anybody can afford it and a simple broken bone can leave a person or family bankrupt because of the extremely high costs. Socialized insurance might limit that but it won't solve it. A system like Australia's or Germany's would work much better. Less costs, better healthcare. What's there not to love?
WHAT? Of course it would solve the problem, they wouldn't be the ones paying for their medical care. And what's not to love? The loss of every advantage that America's system currently has for one. You want adequate care, I want exceptional. I want us to have the very best equipment, the very best doctors, the very best medicine and treatments. Totally socialized medicine means that all of these will be lost. Make the state pay the costs and eliminate a few costs through the methods previously mentioned. Maybe limit copyrights on drugs to a few years, no more than five.
Your healthcare isn't exceptional. It is a fair way off from being the best in the world, despite being the most expensive and you're actually on par with Cuba there - the poor communist country that had been economically blockaded for decades.
They spend about 12% of GDP on healthcare while you spend 16% and they are better in the main indicators that I bothered to look at (Life expectancy and under 5 mortality) according to the 2009 World bank figures I have to hand.
Yeah, except barely anybody can afford it and a simple broken bone can leave a person or family bankrupt because of the extremely high costs. Socialized insurance might limit that but it won't solve it. A system like Australia's or Germany's would work much better. Less costs, better healthcare. What's there not to love?
WHAT? Of course it would solve the problem, they wouldn't be the ones paying for their medical care. And what's not to love? The loss of every advantage that America's system currently has for one. You want adequate care, I want exceptional. I want us to have the very best equipment, the very best doctors, the very best medicine and treatments. Totally socialized medicine means that all of these will be lost. Make the state pay the costs and eliminate a few costs through the methods previously mentioned. Maybe limit copyrights on drugs to a few years, no more than five.
Your healthcare isn't exceptional. It is a fair way off from being the best in the world, despite being the most expensive and you're actually on par with Cuba there - the poor communist country that had been economically blockaded for decades.
They spend about 12% of GDP on healthcare while you spend 16% and they are better in the main indicators that I bothered to look at (Life expectancy and under 5 mortality) according to the 2009 World bank figures I have to hand.
You're talking about indicators that are largely dependent on distribution, not quality. Note that I already dealt with that. Learn to read.
WHAT? Of course it would solve the problem, they wouldn't be the ones paying for their medical care. And what's not to love? The loss of every advantage that America's system currently has for one. You want adequate care, I want exceptional. I want us to have the very best equipment, the very best doctors, the very best medicine and treatments. Totally socialized medicine means that all of these will be lost. Make the state pay the costs and eliminate a few costs through the methods previously mentioned. Maybe limit copyrights on drugs to a few years, no more than five.
Your healthcare isn't exceptional. It is a fair way off from being the best in the world, despite being the most expensive and you're actually on par with Cuba there - the poor communist country that had been economically blockaded for decades.
They spend about 12% of GDP on healthcare while you spend 16% and they are better in the main indicators that I bothered to look at (Life expectancy and under 5 mortality) according to the 2009 World bank figures I have to hand.
You're talking about indicators that are largely dependent on distribution, not quality. Note that I already dealt with that. Learn to read.
Yeah, that was so silly I basically skimmed right past it.
Revnak: You are right about how expensive our medical system is, but we also have the best care, if you can afford it.
Yeah, except barely anybody can afford it and a simple broken bone can leave a person or family bankrupt because of the extremely high costs. Socialized insurance might limit that but it won't solve it. A system like Australia's or Germany's would work much better. Less costs, better healthcare. What's there not to love?
WHAT? Of course it would solve the problem, they wouldn't be the ones paying for their medical care. And what's not to love? The loss of every advantage that America's system currently has for one. You want adequate care, I want exceptional. I want us to have the very best equipment, the very best doctors, the very best medicine and treatments. Totally socialized medicine means that all of these will be lost. Make the state pay the costs and eliminate a few costs through the methods previously mentioned. Maybe limit copyrights on drugs to a few years, no more than five.
And you can back up the idea that America's current health care system is not only exceptional (or, as you seem to imply, the best), but would be made considerably worth by socializing health care? Because neither seem to be actually true to any noticeable degree.
Yeah, except barely anybody can afford it and a simple broken bone can leave a person or family bankrupt because of the extremely high costs. Socialized insurance might limit that but it won't solve it. A system like Australia's or Germany's would work much better. Less costs, better healthcare. What's there not to love?
WHAT? Of course it would solve the problem, they wouldn't be the ones paying for their medical care. And what's not to love? The loss of every advantage that America's system currently has for one. You want adequate care, I want exceptional. I want us to have the very best equipment, the very best doctors, the very best medicine and treatments. Totally socialized medicine means that all of these will be lost. Make the state pay the costs and eliminate a few costs through the methods previously mentioned. Maybe limit copyrights on drugs to a few years, no more than five.
And you can back up the idea that America's current health care system is not only exceptional (or, as you seem to imply, the best), but would be made considerably worth by socializing health care? Because neither seem to be actually true to any noticeable degree.
We are the most responsive by far. Our main, almost sole issue is distribution. Our medical industry is the largest and most innovative. We have absurdly high standards for doctors. Solve distribution and it will be fine. I plan onwriting an essay on the issue now so throwing random data at this point would not irritate me in the slightest. I just have to relate it to family somehow, though I think I have an angle.
Your healthcare isn't exceptional. It is a fair way off from being the best in the world, despite being the most expensive and you're actually on par with Cuba there - the poor communist country that had been economically blockaded for decades.
They spend about 12% of GDP on healthcare while you spend 16% and they are better in the main indicators that I bothered to look at (Life expectancy and under 5 mortality) according to the 2009 World bank figures I have to hand.
You're talking about indicators that are largely dependent on distribution, not quality. Note that I already dealt with that. Learn to read.
Yeah, that was so silly I basically skimmed right past it.
Your reply was so silly I decided to skim past it, so I suppose that's fair.
Not G. Ivingname: Free market economics is actually detromential to getting obscene amounts of wealth. If the market was truly free, staying rich and keeping the largest company would be very, VERY difficult, since new businesses are constantly popping up to challenge the big boys. I cannot even begin to count the amount of regulations that actually make it easier for a tiny few companies to be able to sit happily and let the government stop new competition from sprouting up and challenging them.
Utter, total, complete fantasy. If the market was "totally free", the only outcome is monopoly, whether through one corporate entity completely obliterating all competition, or through price-fixing consortia. Fucking hell, people say Communists are fantasists who take no account of human behaviour in reality; ladies and gentlemen I give you Libertarian economics, so fantastical it belongs in a Disney movie.
I can point to any nation that has a higher rating for economic freedom than the US, and they generally have a higher rating for competativeness as well. Hong Kong, Signapore, Australia, New Zealand, Swizterland, all these places have more companies doing the same business.
Do you have any clue what an "ad hominem attack" is? That's two threads in which you've used the term completely incorrectly.