Why have a market at all?

[Enemy of the State]

This is aimed at liberals and social democrats who believe that government should have a hand to play in some sectors of the economy.

If the government is able to run things like healthcare, monetary policy, education etc more efficiently, why can't it run the entire economy? Why do you not support a centrally planned economy if you trust the government more than private enterprise?

[Dr. Croccer]

Because a market is a bit different from things like healthcare. Companies competing about things like bread is good, competing about healthcare, education, etc isn't. These are things that are necessities, not products. A person's future and life isn't the same as what he choose to eat for dinner, and shouldn't be treated the same. They should be in the hands of a democratic, non-profit organisation in which change can be brought.

A market in itself isn't a bad thing. It's a necessity. A modern economy would function badly without a stable, relatively free market.

That having been said, there have been plenty of centrally-planned economies that have done fine economically. Czarist Russia, Imperial Germany, most dirigist economies, many colonial governments and so on.

My sig kinda says it. Louis Napoleon III advocated both a free market and a dirigist, interventionist policy in some areas, and it worked perfectly for France. A government should mainly be a referee and protector of things which shouldn't be private, like infrastructure, military, and such.

[Mr. Scott]

Because a market is a bit different from things like healthcare. Companies competing about things like bread is good, competing about healthcare, education, etc isn't. These are things that are necessities, not products. A person's future and life isn't the same as what he choose to eat for dinner, and shouldn't be treated the same. They should be in the hands of a democratic, non-profit organisation in which change can be brought. .

Food is a necessity of man. Healthcare isn't.

[Jabberwock]

Food is a necessity of man. Healthcare isn't.

In an industrial society, health care is a necessity. The quality of a product is very much related to the quality of the worker.

There needs to be healthcare in our society for healthy capitalism.

[Admiral Piett]

Food is a necessity of man. Healthcare isn't.

I believe they were talking more in hypothetical. Besides, healthcare is a necessity in this day and age.

[Ex Tenebris Lux]

I believe they were talking more in hypothetical. Besides, healthcare is a necessity in this day and age.

agreed. at the most basic level, it's not safe for a society not to have all its people be as healthy as they can if anything can possibly be done about it. it's a destabilizing force on the community as a whole. I know, I know... some people have a hard time swallowing that Joe Random down the street who makes much less than you should have the same opportunity as you, but this is health we are talking about... Health is not a commodity to be valued and traded. It's a basic of life, and widespread failures in health can be devastating to a complex society.

[Mr. Scott]

I believe they were talking more in hypothetical. Besides, healthcare is a necessity in this day and age.

and why is it a necessity? people have lived without healthcare for generations.

Yes, there is much wrong in the health insurance industry. But this is primarily due to the state border limits put into place on the health care insurance companies. Restrictions that stifle any large corporations from appearing in the industry. The larger corporations would be able to sell insurance cheaper, but because of their restrictions, no dominant corporations in healthcare appear.

Universal Healthcare is not the answer. Capitalism is.

[The spartan]

and why is it a necessity? people have lived without healthcare for generations.

Yes, there is much wrong in the health insurance industry. But this is primarily due to the state border limits put into place on the health care insurance companies. Restrictions that stifle any large corporations from appearing in the industry. The larger corporations would be able to sell insurance cheaper, but because of their restrictions, no dominant corporations in healthcare appear.

Universal Healthcare is not the answer. Capitalism is.

People have lived for generations without glasses, insulin drips, NICU units, c-sections, antibiotics, or vaccination, it doesn't mean people IN THIS DAY IN AGE don't need those things to survive...

[Dr. Croccer]

Food is a necessity of man.

A loaf of bread isn't. If you don't want a loaf of bread from X you can buy one from Y. There's a large difference between competing about trivial mass products and things that are vital to people's lives. If you buy a low quality loaf of bread, at worst it will taste a bit bad. Getting good or bad quality healthcare can mean the difference between life and death. Someone's life shouldn't be treated like a product.

Healthcare isn't.

Really. Look at mortality rates in Third World countries due to disease and then come back.

Then again, while this problems are emerging, you don't want to find yourself in the situation where an unexpected competitor, who didn't rely on low salaries but on technology, tries to steamroll the market, and you are paralyzed with internal issues.
If you think only about the present, and don't foresee possible future challenges and scenarios, be sure you won't last long.

Except it won't. Mechanisation is simply far more expensive and it's production isn't that bigger than that of sweatshops.

[Basil II the B.S]

Except it won't. Mechanisation is simply far more expensive and it's production isn't that bigger than that of sweatshops.

That's honestly a generalization far from reality. But hey, if you think that keeping flooding your countries with immigrants is the best choice, then good for you.

[Dr. Croccer]

That's honestly a generalization far from reality.

Really.

Where are the majority of mass-produced products like clothing, shoes, technologics and toys made: The Third World, or factories in the West?

But hey, if you think that keeping flooding your countries with immigrants is the best choice, then good for you.

...? What do immigrants have anything to do with this?

[intel]

That having been said, there have been plenty of centrally-planned economies that have done fine economically. Czarist Russia (...)

Well, that would pretty much sum up what you've just said.

Czarist Russia?

Fine economy?

Oh my god, so that's how being completly backward compared to any state westward is called today?

Imperial Germany, most dirigist economies, many colonial governments and so on.

Question remains, to what degree Imperial Germany's economy was planned? Each of listed above entities introduced large private sector.

[chilon]

My sig kinda says it. Louis Napoleon III advocated both a free market and a dirigist, interventionist policy in some areas, and it worked perfectly for France.

What time period are you claiming it "worked perfectly" in France?

There is a 'market' in public healthcare. It's just based on necessity and not ability to pay.

Not to be pedantic but this exchange in which both you and JP use the term "health care" illustrates just how far the PR of HMOs have gone around the world over the last 20 years.

There is no market in public "health care". Literally that term makes no sense in the context it is used if you think about it. "Health care" means a hella lot more than just medical insurance.

What there is a market for, is medical insurance.

In my opinion, one of the worst scandalous hustles was the re-framing of medical insurance into the more ambiguous and allegorical term of "health care". What the heck does "health care" as a term even mean?

This re-framing was done to accompany the unnecessary rules of the HMO business.

The biggest problem is that HMOs restrict the freedom of citizens to choose their own doctors. Yes, yes I am well aware that PPO allow this but really when the laws changed and HMO were allowed to implement their new systems of "efficient health care management" was precisely the moment when medical insurance and the whole business of hospitals and "health care" began its current decline.

[Richard]

Because a market is a bit different from things like healthcare. Companies competing about things like bread is good, competing about healthcare, education, etc isn't. These are things that are necessities, not products. A person's future and life isn't the same as what he choose to eat for dinner, and shouldn't be treated the same. They should be in the hands of a democratic, non-profit organisation in which change can be brought.
.

Healthcare and education are products. Also, all Western countries treat them as such, it's just they have a free or subsidised state system as well in many cases...ever heard of a private school? A private hospital? Private medical insurance? The cough medicine stand of your local supermarket?

Also, bread/food is much more of a necessity than either healthcare or education.

[Ex Tenebris Lux]

this isn't necesarily my view, but I'm going to play Devil's Advocate. You can't rely on the private sector to be "fair" (wtf is fair anyway? that's a different story but let's use that word for the sake of argument), and you can't rely on it to be just. That in mind, things that are a greater good, like basic healthcare, should not be exclusive only to those who happen to be able to fork out more cash. healthcare shouldn't be a privilege, it should be a right. therefore, the private sector being fickle and selfish and riddled with the faults endemic to the human condition (greed and whatnot), some people would rather the government handle the broader issues like garaunteed national healthcare, since the government is more apt to work in the favor of the masses (supposedly; again, we're talking about how things are on paper, not necesarily in practice). but when it comes to things that are strictly personal in nature, such as what you can do with your privately accumulated wealth, and how you wish to conduct yourself vis a vis a market society, then that is something that you should have a free hand in.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

communism infringes rights way more so than regulated capitalism.

[Ex Tenebris Lux]

communism infringes rights way more so than regulated capitalism.

I think I like you better in this thread lol

[justicar5]

This is aimed at liberals and social democrats who believe that government should have a hand to play in some sectors of the economy.

If the government is able to run things like healthcare, monetary policy, education etc more efficiently, why can't it run the entire economy? Why do you not support a centrally planned economy if you trust the government more than private enterprise?

Because it runs somethings better (in fact alot of things) doesn't mean it does everything better, for instance: The NHS is great, but British Leyland cars where terrible, an example from the other direction: Pre-privatisation, British Rail was cheap and reliable (but the food was terrible) After privitasation, the various companies are more expensive, less reliable, and random replacement with bus services the norm late at night (but the food when available is slightly less terrible).

The point: markets work well, for certian areas of the economy, but is terrible in others,

Besides corporate power if not restrained is a far more terrible and brutal master than any democratic goverment. For instance the actions of Royal Dutch Shell in Nigeria, subverting the goverment to suppress and later kill members of Movement for the Survival of the Organi people who dared to protest the dumping of oil waste on there land and the destruction of there livelyhoods.

[Ex Tenebris Lux]

Because it runs somethings better (in fact alot of things) doesn't mean it does everything better

I think that right there sums it up beautifully.

[Каие]

The answer is simple. It's not all black and white. But irrational shades of grey. Few people believe the police and prisons should be privatised. It can work as private entities, applying profit incentive and contracting into those sectors... however it would not be appropriate or desirable in many ways to many people. Apply the same principle to Health and Education. Some people see them as commodities, others see them as services of the public health and common good and as a matter of rights.