Comments on: Health Care and Free Markets, Take II http://www.cricketschirping.com/weblog/2009/08/14/health-care-and-free-markets-take-ii/ mon qui si, mon qui d'où Tue, 07 Sep 2010 11:04:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Ninja Bill http://www.cricketschirping.com/weblog/2009/08/14/health-care-and-free-markets-take-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-57907 Ninja Bill Sat, 15 Aug 2009 19:16:50 +0000 http://www.cricketschirping.com/weblog/?p=1454#comment-57907 Also, I don't see Obama as being an ideologue - I see him as obsessed with his image - but he has staked his political capital on "doing something about health care". So his goal is to have "something" done that at least looks good in the short-term (knowing that the media and future historians are going to gush over him anyway). This is why the backroom meetings with the drug industry and insurance industry special interest groups lead me to a general inclination to oppose whatever he is working on. He has basically traded the granting (or protection) of some privileges in exchange for their support (and I've started seeing pro-Obamacare commercials paid for by these groups). The privileges won't be obvious to most, of course, since most of the populace doesn't understand economics - how for example almost all 'consumer protection' legislation actually exploits consumers for the benefit of big business. Also,

I don’t see Obama as being an ideologue - I see him as obsessed with his image - but he has staked his political capital on “doing something about health care”. So his goal is to have “something” done that at least looks good in the short-term (knowing that the media and future historians are going to gush over him anyway).
This is why the backroom meetings with the drug industry and insurance industry special interest groups lead me to a general inclination to oppose whatever he is working on. He has basically traded the granting (or protection) of some privileges in exchange for their support (and I’ve started seeing pro-Obamacare commercials paid for by these groups).
The privileges won’t be obvious to most, of course, since most of the populace doesn’t understand economics - how for example almost all ‘consumer protection’ legislation actually exploits consumers for the benefit of big business.

]]> By: Ninja Bill http://www.cricketschirping.com/weblog/2009/08/14/health-care-and-free-markets-take-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-57906 Ninja Bill Sat, 15 Aug 2009 19:10:09 +0000 http://www.cricketschirping.com/weblog/?p=1454#comment-57906 On "socialized X" - There is indeed a big difference between socialized health care, socialized funding of health care, socialized insurance, socialized funding of insurance, etc... One of the things about statism in general (contra free markets) is that there are a million different "plans" that can be implemented. Of course what emerges from the democratic political process involves massive compromise, so is rarely coherent according to any "plan". (this is a small part of Hayek's argument in _The Road to Serfdom_ for why government intervention tends to push us towards the slippery slope into totalitarianism). On WW2 - the feds wanted to fund the war by printing money instead of raising taxes, but workers and companies started catching on and raising wages and prices as fast as the money was printed. So the feds said "stop that!" and froze (monetary) wages and prices. In order to pull in more (or better) workers, firms had to find some form of non-monetary compensation. (and dude, I hope you aren't calling me a conservative, that just makes baby jesus cry - google Hayek's "Why I am not a conservative" for more, or alternatively: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek#Hayek_and_conservatism ) On Lighting Candles: I think the "Whole Foods" plan would go a very long way towards this. On Meta: The way I see it, the political process works a certain way, and generally anything that goes into the process with the aim towards increased government control of anything will end up being really socially harmful coming out. One aspect of this - what is likely to happen is that some bill will be passed that is full of vague mandates and broad objectives that all sound really nice. The details of implementation will fall to some bureaucracy. Members of congressional oversight committees will then hash out the details (in a way favorable to the special interest groups in their districts (+general favor trading), and harmful to society overall) behind closed doors with the bureaucrats. On “socialized X” - There is indeed a big difference between socialized health care, socialized funding of health care, socialized insurance, socialized funding of insurance, etc… One of the things about statism in general (contra free markets) is that there are a million different “plans” that can be implemented. Of course what emerges from the democratic political process involves massive compromise, so is rarely coherent according to any “plan”. (this is a small part of Hayek’s argument in _The Road to Serfdom_ for why government intervention tends to push us towards the slippery slope into totalitarianism).

On WW2 - the feds wanted to fund the war by printing money instead of raising taxes, but workers and companies started catching on and raising wages and prices as fast as the money was printed. So the feds said “stop that!” and froze (monetary) wages and prices. In order to pull in more (or better) workers, firms had to find some form of non-monetary compensation.

(and dude, I hope you aren’t calling me a conservative, that just makes baby jesus cry - google Hayek’s “Why I am not a conservative” for more, or alternatively:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek#Hayek_and_conservatism
)

On Lighting Candles: I think the “Whole Foods” plan would go a very long way towards this.

On Meta: The way I see it, the political process works a certain way, and generally anything that goes into the process with the aim towards increased government control of anything will end up being really socially harmful coming out.
One aspect of this - what is likely to happen is that some bill will be passed that is full of vague mandates and broad objectives that all sound really nice. The details of implementation will fall to some bureaucracy. Members of congressional oversight committees will then hash out the details (in a way favorable to the special interest groups in their districts (+general favor trading), and harmful to society overall) behind closed doors with the bureaucrats.

]]>