Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

United States with Capitalism

Posted Sep 26, '13 at 12:24am

Freakenstein

Freakenstein

9,242 posts

Moderator

I mean, we might as well be Communist.


The difference is that Communism strictly deals in government policies and a reformation of a sovereign constitution.

Socialism is the government intervention in economic policies.

We can have Socialist economic policies and still be a Representative Democracy.
 

Posted Sep 26, '13 at 10:48am

pangtongshu

pangtongshu

9,704 posts

Prices went up because demand went down.


*Demand went up

These people were forced to pay prices that were ridiculously raised, and I say forced because these items were those that went from desirable items to necessities.

[So we are on the same page, I am talking about those that were at the heart of Katrina]

This is why the discussion of "Free market" vs. "Moral obligation" is brought up, at that point what these people had to pay (lest they desired further suffering/death) were viewed as mere extortion by people.

Then, of course, there is the argument that although it is a free market, and those in the market may set the prices as they see fit, it was not really a "free market" on the consumer's end, since they did not have the free choice of if they wanted the item or not.
 

Posted Sep 26, '13 at 10:50am

pangtongshu

pangtongshu

9,704 posts

Also..I hope when you keep stating "you" that you aren't actually meaning me personally.

 

Posted Sep 26, '13 at 8:55pm

NoNameC68

NoNameC68

5,296 posts

Knight

It's not more expensive to have socialized healthcare.
You aren't going to be forced to live a crappy life, because you'll have healthcare too. You aren't going to be paying for your own healthcare costs in addition to paying the tax for the socialized healthcare coverage...you'll just be covered by the tax.


Wrong.

Either my employer, or myself, will have to pay for my healthcare.

My employer can't afford to pay for everyone's healthcare - therefore I'll have to pay for some of it.

Yes. I will have to pay for it.

Then, of course, there is the argument that although it is a free market, and those in the market may set the prices as they see fit, it was not really a "free market" on the consumer's end, since they did not have the free choice of if they wanted the item or not.


You can't claim lack of freedom in a market when someone can't dictate the price of something that isn't even their property.

And, as I said before, there were zero moral issues when it came to the price of goods after Katrina. You're completely ignoring supply and demand.

If the prices of goods remained the same, yet the demand went up, then people are going to buy more of said good. Since supply is limited, this means less people with end up with more of the good.

You need prices to go up. This prevents people from buying too much of said good, leaving that good for everyone else. Yes, the poor who needs said good will have to pay more money. But it's better than them obtaining no good at all - because someone else bought all the goods out due to fixed pricing.
 

Posted Sep 26, '13 at 8:56pm

NoNameC68

NoNameC68

5,296 posts

Knight

And, no, I'm using "you" in an ambiguous way.

 

Posted Sep 26, '13 at 9:05pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,734 posts

Yes. I will have to pay for it.


You're already paying for it, in one way or another. If your employer is providing it, that means they're buying it for you. That money they are paying for the insurance premiums exists, it's just being re-appropriated to each individual person. No more money is being paid overall, but everyone is paying less because everyone is contributing instead of just a few.

If the prices of goods remained the same, yet the demand went up, then people are going to buy more of said good. Since supply is limited, this means less people with end up with more of the good.


Except that's not how it works in reality. Certain people have more money than others and can afford to buy more at the higher price demanded. This means people without the money are left without any to buy. A real moral fix would be rationing during an emergency, whereby everyone enough for what they need and those with lots of money can't buy it all up.

If everyone had the exact same amount of money as everyone else, then what you'd be saying would be correct. However, not everyone makes the same amount of money, and not everyone can afford what others can. When it comes to goods like healthcare, not being able to afford it literally means life or death quite often, and greatly impacts happiness/productivity. It benefits everyone, including you, to put healthcare under a socialized system where people can't take advantage of the fact that healthcare is a good you have to purchase regardless of the price.
 

Posted Sep 26, '13 at 10:22pm

NoNameC68

NoNameC68

5,296 posts

Knight

Except that's not how it works in reality.


What I described is precisely what happens. People who plan on buying in bulk have to more carefully consider how much of a good they really need.

What about the poor? Rarely are people too poor to buy what they need. And there are so many charities out there that these people are often cared for.

It's hardly an issue at all. Yes, it does cause people to spend even more, after they already lost so much. But as I said before, at least they're able to obtain goods.

And rationing doesn't work because you need to know exactly what the supply is and how many people there are who need said good. If you're not careful, you either won't allow people to obtain enough, or you allow them to obtain too much.

The master regulator is the free market! It's not perfect, but it works better than anything else out there. Pricing efficiently dictates demand, and to say it doesn't is ludicrous. Yes, some people might have so much money that higher prices won't deter them from buying in bulk - but MOST people aren't that rich. MOST people are going to weigh cost and need.
 

Posted Sep 27, '13 at 1:24am

Kasic

Kasic

5,734 posts

The master regulator is the free market! It's not perfect, but it works better than anything else out there. Pricing efficiently dictates demand, and to say it doesn't is ludicrous. Yes, some people might have so much money that higher prices won't deter them from buying in bulk - but MOST people aren't that rich. MOST people are going to weigh cost and need.


However, that's only true when it's voluntary to buy a good. It doesn't work out that way for everything.

For example, the fire department. Imagine if you had to pay the entire cost individually for them to come put out your house if it caught on fire. Imagine if it worked like a business - they have a number of people they're covering. In order to be profitable, their entire client base needs to pay off the fire station, the firemen's salaries, the firemen's equipment, and any/all other costs. Except what do you do when someone's house next to yours is on fire? Let it burn down because they aren't covered? Well, forgoing the entire discussion on the immorality of that, your house is at danger of catching too. So, it'd be best really to put out the neighbor's fire before it spreads. But wait! They haven't been paying for it, so now are you going to charge them in full?

The point is, healthcare is a public good. It's too expensive for the individual to realistically afford, but when everyone is paying partially that isn't true. Healthcare is needed by everyone, and not getting it isn't really an option. Free market doesn't work when the consumers -must- purchase.
 

Posted Sep 27, '13 at 7:40am

NoNameC68

NoNameC68

5,296 posts

Knight

Healthcare is something that can compete in a market. Fire departments can't. You can shop around for better healthcare, whereas you don't have that luxury with fire departments. There are only a few instances where you are rushed to a hospital.

I'm okay with the burden of cost being shifted for emergencies, that is, when someone must be worked on asap. But when you have time to shop around for the treatment that works for you, there's no reason a hospital can't become competitive. Of course, the word "competitive" reminds people of rat race, people doing whatever they can to win. But in a free-market, competition works differently.

Healthcare is too expensive, but we need to figure out why it's so expensive instead of shifting the burden of cost.

 

Posted Sep 27, '13 at 12:41pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,734 posts

But when you have time to shop around for the treatment that works for you,


And what if there's no treatment that works for you that's affordable? What if you can't find any coverage because you have a condition that no one will cover, because they would lose money covering you? Did you watch that first video EmperorPalpatine provided?

Healthcare is too expensive, but we need to figure out why it's so expensive instead of shifting the burden of cost.


We know why it's expensive. The cost of training doctors is high, because it takes a long time. The cost of the equipment used is high, because of the materials used and high development costs of those. The cost of the hospital building is high, because in order to be competitive they must offer a wide range of services. And most of all, the cost is high because doctors, hospital owners, and insurance companies want to make money, and they know you're going to have to buy healthcare, plus insurance isn't profitable unless the person never actually uses what they're paying for.

I don't know how many times I have to say this, but it's less expensive in a socialistic system because the burden of cost is shifted among everyone. The risk factors are distributed, so that when someone actually has to cash in to get treatment, the premiums don't go up for everyone else, because on average more people are healthy than not. When you try to individualize it, you're playing the odds more.

Go watch Emperor's video. If you already have, then go watch it again, because you clearly didn't pay attention at all.
 
Reply to United States with Capitalism

You must be logged in to post a reply!