I'm not sure competition is a primary goal of capitalism. - Edit 2
Before modification by Joel at 29/03/2010 12:42:37 PM
<unwieldy bits truncated.>
Capitalism is not about driving down costs by competition or any other means, it's about investing capital in production with the expectation of a greater return (profit. ) The effects of competition are just how you sell it to consumers, but it's not an inherent part of the equation, and absent government regulation it usually becomes a casualty fairly quickly when market dominance is established, because it's really counterproductive to capitalisms goals.
Well, much as I loathe the bill, the number of people who were without healthcare already vastly exceeded the number of people without clothing, and, at least in the short term, the numbers of the former are reduced by this bill. Also, I don't think (though I haven't checked) the percentage of people below the poverty line in the US is "incredibly low" among industrialized nations. Maybe by comparison to, say, Burma or Somalia, but I hold America to a higher standard. But I'm inclined to agree with your final statement; the problem with Obamacare (apart from the obvious one: Little cost control) is that it doesn't say, "this is the mininmum necessary healthcare everyone gets" it says, "everyone must have it and we'll pick up x dollars of the cost for those we determine can't afford it. " That assumes two things, that their one size fits all estimate of who can and can't afford it is inerrant, and that a stated subsidy amount will make up the shortfall. Neither of those things is a given.
That there's always someone like that is another unfounded assumption, particularly given the fact that when the necessity in question isn't a natural resource it has to be produced from materials that are natural resources (as well as being manufactured. ) It ignores the fact that if a Ralph Lauren or Guess wanted $10 aeropostale shirts off the market all they'd have to do is take a temporary loss and sell theirs for $9 or $8 or whatever was necessary to eliminate aeropostales marketshare, then jack up the price to whatever they pleased. Or take the temporary loss of outbidding them by so much for labor that aeropostale could no longer hire workers. That's assuming they didn't just resort to intimidation and sabotage practices that are illegal without having to resort to commercial law. Textiles were, after all, one of the primary industries in which horrid practices motivated a host of regulations at the turn of the last century.
Part of why food is less expensive here is government subsidies to large farms. Water it depends on where you go; it's a sore point for me because the local "water supply corporation" is also running the new sewer system (I'm not sure why we have a private corp doing municipal water and sewage; working theory is "because our PVI is probably ~+51 Republican. " ) That means we're paying nearly $80/month for water that manages to be high in Cl AND CaCO3, and a sewer system we don't need.
But anyway, pure capitalism doesn't control costs, it creates monopolies, and that's bad when the product sold is a necessity. ANY degree of government regulation over an industry represents the dreaded government interference, and the moment you concede any of it is necessary you're talking about socialism rather than pure capitalism. Socialism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive; socialism is essentially a hybrid of pure communism and pure capitalism in which neither the government nor private industry operates as supreme. Indeed, one of the best ways to avoid abusive trade practices is to have essential goods and services available at a minimal level for no profit through the government, and more luxurious ones available privately for profit. That ensures that, in effect, government and private industry always have one major competitor (each other) for the patronage of consumer-taxpayers.
That's one thing to dispense with right here: Having the government provide a good or service doesn't make it "free" you just pay for it with taxes instead of out of pocket. Ironically, it's rather similar to what private insurance companies do with premiums; the difference is that government officials can be thrown out of office if they displease taxpayers, but consumers have no such luxury with private businesses. So if we're arguing that's a bad system, that invalidates private as well as public insurance and we should all just go back to paying the doctor whatever he charges to keep us alive, confident that competition among doctors will prevent anyone being charged more than they can afford to stay alive. Assuming, y'know, that the private AMA doesn't tell doctors they have to charge a grossly inflated fee for all services, which would be perfectly legal unless the government interfered to prevent it.
I'm not sure I agree with you at all about socialism being more free market oriented than laissez-faire capitalism, but I follow your point. At a certain point, both socialism and laissez-faire go away from the basic goals of capitalism and that is: competition drives down costs and the consumers determine what gets produced. The best thing to do is have limited government oversight, ensuring that things are fair (I don't mean to beg the question here) and that the rights of individuals are protected.
Capitalism is not about driving down costs by competition or any other means, it's about investing capital in production with the expectation of a greater return (profit. ) The effects of competition are just how you sell it to consumers, but it's not an inherent part of the equation, and absent government regulation it usually becomes a casualty fairly quickly when market dominance is established, because it's really counterproductive to capitalisms goals.
There are people roaming the streets looking for clothing, but the percent of citizens below the poverty line is incredibly low in the united states. And, I would venture to say, that the number of people who cannot find enough clothes to survive is far less than the number of people who will not be able to afford insurance in Obamacare. To say that clothes are a necessity people are unable to obtain is just pure wrong. Some people might want to be warmer or more fashionable, but Obamacare doesn't promise the BEST healthcare fore everyone does it? No, it does not. We only need to clothe ourselves enough to survive and to provide whatever comfort we can afford. The same is true of healthcare.
Well, much as I loathe the bill, the number of people who were without healthcare already vastly exceeded the number of people without clothing, and, at least in the short term, the numbers of the former are reduced by this bill. Also, I don't think (though I haven't checked) the percentage of people below the poverty line in the US is "incredibly low" among industrialized nations. Maybe by comparison to, say, Burma or Somalia, but I hold America to a higher standard. But I'm inclined to agree with your final statement; the problem with Obamacare (apart from the obvious one: Little cost control) is that it doesn't say, "this is the mininmum necessary healthcare everyone gets" it says, "everyone must have it and we'll pick up x dollars of the cost for those we determine can't afford it. " That assumes two things, that their one size fits all estimate of who can and can't afford it is inerrant, and that a stated subsidy amount will make up the shortfall. Neither of those things is a given.
Necessities that aren't natural resources ARE prone to prices being driven down, because there's always someone willing to appeal to that sector of the economy which can't afford expensive meals. A pasta dinner costs $5. There are tshirts at aeropostale, a well known brand, that go for $10.
That there's always someone like that is another unfounded assumption, particularly given the fact that when the necessity in question isn't a natural resource it has to be produced from materials that are natural resources (as well as being manufactured. ) It ignores the fact that if a Ralph Lauren or Guess wanted $10 aeropostale shirts off the market all they'd have to do is take a temporary loss and sell theirs for $9 or $8 or whatever was necessary to eliminate aeropostales marketshare, then jack up the price to whatever they pleased. Or take the temporary loss of outbidding them by so much for labor that aeropostale could no longer hire workers. That's assuming they didn't just resort to intimidation and sabotage practices that are illegal without having to resort to commercial law. Textiles were, after all, one of the primary industries in which horrid practices motivated a host of regulations at the turn of the last century.
Now, I'm not saying people shouldn't have government aid for things like healthcare. I'm just wondering WHY the government has to pay for all of it? The answer to that is probably "because healthcare costs too much." Well, then lets control cost. HOW? Capitalism!! Is food THAT expensive? Is clothing? Is water? All essential components to survival that most people can afford to indulge on. What keeps this cost down? Capitalism. Not laissez-faire, but a moderate free market economy. Look at the things people can't afford in this country. Healthcare and rising gas prices. Both either government run or monopolized.
Part of why food is less expensive here is government subsidies to large farms. Water it depends on where you go; it's a sore point for me because the local "water supply corporation" is also running the new sewer system (I'm not sure why we have a private corp doing municipal water and sewage; working theory is "because our PVI is probably ~+51 Republican. " ) That means we're paying nearly $80/month for water that manages to be high in Cl AND CaCO3, and a sewer system we don't need.
But anyway, pure capitalism doesn't control costs, it creates monopolies, and that's bad when the product sold is a necessity. ANY degree of government regulation over an industry represents the dreaded government interference, and the moment you concede any of it is necessary you're talking about socialism rather than pure capitalism. Socialism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive; socialism is essentially a hybrid of pure communism and pure capitalism in which neither the government nor private industry operates as supreme. Indeed, one of the best ways to avoid abusive trade practices is to have essential goods and services available at a minimal level for no profit through the government, and more luxurious ones available privately for profit. That ensures that, in effect, government and private industry always have one major competitor (each other) for the patronage of consumer-taxpayers.
That's one thing to dispense with right here: Having the government provide a good or service doesn't make it "free" you just pay for it with taxes instead of out of pocket. Ironically, it's rather similar to what private insurance companies do with premiums; the difference is that government officials can be thrown out of office if they displease taxpayers, but consumers have no such luxury with private businesses. So if we're arguing that's a bad system, that invalidates private as well as public insurance and we should all just go back to paying the doctor whatever he charges to keep us alive, confident that competition among doctors will prevent anyone being charged more than they can afford to stay alive. Assuming, y'know, that the private AMA doesn't tell doctors they have to charge a grossly inflated fee for all services, which would be perfectly legal unless the government interfered to prevent it.