Clinton 2020
- Thread starter my_2cents
- Start date
I'm not arguing his position. But there are only 4 possible actions he took related to the 2016 election: 1) Voted for Trump (not likely); 2) Voted for Hillary (and thus supported someone who endorsed the war); 3) wrote in or voted 3rd party (maybe he voted for Stein) or 4) didn't vote. Given his other threads and statements over the past several years, the logical conclusion is #2, which flies in the face of "I'll never vote for anyone who supported the war."
I haven't heard any reasonable objections so far. Simply saying "we can't pay for it," "it will bankrupt us," "we will become Venezuela," "socialism never works," "bunch of commies," etc. aren't reasonable objections.
And btw, it continues to be hilarious how you are supporting a candidate who advocates for all these domestic policies that you disagree with, attack, and claim will destroy our country.
Oh yeah, that's right, you think she is being disingenuous about her commitment to those domestic positions! I forgot.
Nonsense. There have been plenty of thoughtful, rational objections to Big Brother government programs posted on this board, both as links and as independent thought by various individuals. That you are incapable of discerning calmly reasoned objections to government violations of liberty says more about you than you probably want us to see. It would be to your benefit to observe how Pilt occasionally comports himself when debating with others. He frequently shows that he has listened to counter arguments and provides counter arguments of his own, not just dismissing his opponent out of hand.
As regards Tulsi Gabbard: I don’t know how many times it has to be explained to you that I support Ms. Gabbard only so far as her anti-regime change war stand. I disagree with her on virtually everything else. If she were president and tried to enact big government interventionism I would scream bloody murder. Think of it like this. I support Donald Trump on several issues. His attempts to roll back regulations, his nomination of “conservative” judges are a couple of examples. But I howl with fury against his tariffs and trade wars, so much so there are plenty of Trump loyalists on this board that are convinced I’m a NeverTrumper, while you are convinced I’m a right-wing, Fox News loving Trump loyalist that wouldn’t care if he grabbed a woman by her private parts. It’s the same with Gabbard. Her top priority is to end the war madness. That’s my top priority, too. Ergo I support Tulsi Gabbard. Do you get it now? Must I keep repeating this over and over?
Dan. No. For free markets to be optimal there are three preconditions: 1. The existence of competitive equilibrium 2. the marketability of all goods and services relevant to costs and utilities 3. and nonincreasing returns.
1. Doesn't hold. For example price discrimination in medical services is inconsistent with the existence of a competitive equilibrium.
2. Doesn't hold. For example some healthcare costs and utilities are externalized in the form of diffusion of disease and herd immunity. Crucially, there is no insurance market for the risk of failed treatment.
3. This one mostly holds.
Dan you are backsliding here into ad hominem and tautology.
Twas not meant as either. It was meant as saying while I think he is wrong more often than right there is no denying his brilliance, and it is easy to see why he has had the influence he has had, and why you would find him appealing.
As for your healthcare argument I disagree. For free markets to be optimal there need to be only two components: a willing buyer and a willing seller. Anything else is voodoo.
Absolutely that’s the key word! It isn’t a free market if either participant is being forced into the deal. That’s where your form of governing begins and mine ends.
A willing transaction requires a transparent price and a transparent good or service
Yes, indeed it does. It is fraud to misrepresent the quality of a product or to demand a payment other than what has been negotiated. Fraud is the antithesis of a free market.
Dan just based on reading your post over the last few years I have to conclude you voted for Bush in 2004.
Now imagine if I said that with a straight face.
Oh, hell, Pilt, take me to the Promised Land! If I’m close guide me to an uneventful
landing!
This morning I had a follow up consultation with the surgeon who repaired my bicep.
You knew the price upfront, the services to be provided, and the efficacy of the services?
I knew the first two, of course. The efficacy of the surgery was contingent on factors that would be unknown until he cut my arm open and checked things out. Where are you going with this? You’re asking questions about a “status quo” situation.
Well Dan most people don't know the price of the medical services they receive ahead of time and don't know the efficacy or necessity of the services they receive. What I am getting at is medicine is not a market of transparent buyers and sellers. And even if it was that is only optimal based on your freedom maximizing approach, and it isn't optimal in a utility maximizing framework.
Wrong. Outcomes can never be predicted with 100% confidence because the human body isn't flawless, but in most cases the efficacy of any given medical treatment is fairly well established. If it's not, it's because it's experimental. Hello, FDA.
Wrong.
Saying socialism never works isn't a reasonable objection to socialism?I haven't heard any reasonable objections so far. Simply saying "we can't pay for it," "it will bankrupt us," "we will become Venezuela," "socialism never works," "bunch of commies," etc. aren't reasonable objections.
And btw, it continues to be hilarious how you are supporting a candidate who advocates for all these domestic policies that you disagree with, attack, and claim will destroy our country.
Oh yeah, that's right, you think she is being disingenuous about her commitment to those domestic positions! I forgot.
I guess I was lucky in knowing the necessity of the service, since it looked like my bicep had disappeared and there was a tennis ball under my skin at my shoulder. The surgeon explained in great detail what procedure would take place and what follow up would be required. I knew what my out of pocket expense would be beforehand, but I did not know how much the insurance company would have to pay. (I now know that between the facility, the surgeon and the physical therapy the cost was over $40K.). Considering my age I doubt I would have been allowed the surgery in a country with socialized medicine, or certainly not within two days of the tear. I’m still not understanding what your point is. It seems you are suggesting that since most people don’t know what they’re getting into in this status quo world therefore all people must be required to do as their government bureaucratic betters tell them to do. Is that where you’re taking this train?
I'm suggesting that medicine doesn't and can't operate as a free market for a myriad of reasons, in this case informational asymmetry. Therefore even the status quo is preferable to an unregulated free market in medicine, and in my opinion a single payer insurance plan is preferable to the status quo.
In this example I think what he is getting at is he wants an explanation of why socialism never works. I have posted links explaining the failure of socialism to recognize the demand/supply mechanism because it eliminates (or severely dilutes) the price structure necessary to coordinate the supply with the demand. I doubt he has ever heard this line of explanation, and would block it out if he did hear it, since it refutes a theory in which he has placed great emotional attachment.
I’m not understanding what you mean by “informational asymmetry,” nor am I comprehending why out of all commodities healthcare is unique in needing governmental bureaucratic guidance to alleviate said asymmetry. Crony capitalist food producers probably want to utilize the same asymmetrical argument. We sure as hell know steel producers do. And bankers. And weapons manufacturers. You’re offering the camel’s nose under the tent by isolating healthcare. Once healthcare has been taken over the floodgates will burst as cronies from all walks of life will demand that the same “protection” apply to them.
as long as a 3rd party is paying for it responsibilities go out the window...sorry, didn't mean to cause a distraction.
What am I missing? Did you not post that people don't know the efficacy or necessity of the services they receive in the above quoted post?
Informational asymmetry in this case is only one party knowing the price, efficacy, and necessity of the services. I think it is obvious how that doesn't apply for the industries list.
You are using present tense verbs in your argument, which implies you are arguing against the status quo, not free markets. There is no reason to believe people would be as ignorant of their circumstances in a free market because a free market requires free people who are responsible for their own well being.
Dan are you proposing that in a completely free market that medicine wouldn't be dominated by quacks charlatans and scammers?
Similar threads
