Re: Comments on this please... OT

[Guest guest]

correct me if I'm misinterpreting your statements here but if

you are attempting to associate a true free market economy with

corporate profit mongers who could care less about environmental

concerns you don't know the first thing about free market economics.

You just know about the baloney propaganda from the far far left

that has become accepted ideology in our culture.

In a true free market economy the actual ability to continue to do

business, be productive and turn a profit is essential to the

existence of the free market. If a theoretical company in a

theoretical free market damages the environment to the degree that

they damage themselves, their neighbors or their customers (the

latter two eqalling damage to themselves) they damage their ability

to function as a productive and profitable entity. The notion that

free market is equivalent to PROFITS at ALL costs is pure and

absolute drivel and to state such clearly demonstrates a complete

and utter lack of under standing of what a real free market economic

state would entail.

The corporate behavior you see today couldn't be further from free

market economics. No self respecting free market promoting company

would ever take a government subsidy like the big boys do today.

I find it amusing that the socialistic flavor of our modern day

economics is so despised by so many and the proposed solution is

more socialistic measures to " fix " it.

If I have mis interpreted what you said than I officially declare

myself an idiot and will now shut up :-)

DMM

> In a message dated 3/23/03 10:13:56 AM Eastern Standard Time,

larry@m...

> writes:

>

> > ***** Please don't confuse factory farming/corporate socialism

with the

> > free market. Along with other natural things the freemarket has

been

> unjustly

> > demonized. Think of the free market as raw milk. Once they have

been

> > subsidized/pastuerized they are no longer the freemarket or raw

milk. As

> Tim

> > of Clearview Acres explained: it is communism if the government

subsidized/

> > controls farms. It doesn't matter whether farmers or

corporations are large

> > or small. If they accept subsidies they participate in National

Socialism

> > instead of the free markets. There is no in between. Its

National

> Socialism

> > which ails our country not the liberty of the free market.

>

> Larry, was pointing out to the factors we talked about in the

Maine

> agricultural thread which I pointed out repeatedly and you and

> completely ignored: that a fatal flaw in free market economic

theory is that

> of the externality. If efficiency is benefits minus costs, and

environmental

> pollution is a global effect and therefore does not effect the

monetary cost

> of the producer or consumer, it is therfore not factored into the

> " efficiency " equation, which allows market to produce inefficient

results.

> My access to unpolluted fish is wholly independent of my choice to

support

> industrial products or not, for example.

>

> Chris

>

> ____

>

> " What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion?

It is a

> heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings,

birds, and

> animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the

sight of

> them make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and

intense

> compassion, which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them

unable to

> bear the sight of the smallest, most insignificant wound in any

creature.

> Thus they pray ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for

enemies of the

> truth, and for those who do them wrong. "

>

> --Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

>

> I like and respect you a lot, so I'm reluctant to get into any

kind of

> argument about this, but I also feel I can't let a statement like

that

> stand undisputed. (Maybe you knew that was coming. <g>)

============== I appreciate that . Likewise. We do not have

to " argue " about this. As I'm sure that you are wrong :-))))).

However worse comes to worse we'll just have to disagree. I'm sure

I would not be the first person you ever had disagree with you.

Same goes here. :-)

>

> Look at it this way: in any system, what are the incentives?

Because when

> there's an incentive to behave some way, some people will behave

that way,

> and if they're rewarded, they'll " win " -- they'll proliferate,

their

> behavior will be imitated, will spread, will be refined, etc.

==================== This is 100% true. This is why a true free

market economic system WORKS FOR EVERYONE!

The entire

> idea of a " free " market is to remove all " artificial " impediments

to

> commercial behavior.

=================== This statement is completely and utterly wrong!

It does indicate your complete lack of knowlege about what a free

market is. It is wrought with the inaccurate assumptions below.

You have believed the baloney of the extreme left regarding their

version of free market economics.

If polluting cuts costs in the short term, it will be

> rewarded by higher profits. If it's more profitable to pollute

and then

> defend against lawsuits (and there's endless evidence of companies

> accepting lawsuits and even settlements as an acceptable cost of

doing

> business) then that's how business will be conducted.

=================== This is a ridiculous supposition. In that it is

NOT economically viable to damage the environment/customer base that

CREATES your profits. That is how companies do business TODAY in a

vile and inappropriately socialized government subsidized corporate

structure. What you hate is correct and I agree but it is behavior

of modern day current corporate culture. And we no more live in a

true free market today than we live with Alice in Wonderland. This

is the behavior of a culture with a massive amount of trial lawyers

mixed in with a political landscape that is meddlesome and wrought

with corruption.

It boggles my mind how after thousands of years of human government

experimentation the results as to the ineptitude of government as a

whole is so remarkably clear and the horrific corporate behavior of

this modern day is met with proposed solutions of more governement

intervention, meddling and just plain intrusion. It is no different

than pouring gasoline on a fire in hopes of putting it out.

Any belief to the

> contrary is not a belief in free market behavior but in altruism,

================== This is another ridiculous premise. What I

describe as behavior in a true free market is completely selfish

behavior and 100% good business. Don't kill or maim your customer.

It doesn't get more basic than that.

and I

> believe extremely strongly that we cannot and must not base any

workable

> and just political system on wishful thinking. Even if 95% -- or

99.99% --

> of people behave altruistically and don't pollute, the 5% or 0.01%

of

> people who are bastards will make the most money and therefore do

the most

> damage if they can pollute unimpeded.

=================== I have clearly stated that your position is

riddled with gross misrepresentation and inaccuracy, however even if

this previous statement were true and 5% of the bastards were

polluting I'd suggest to you we'd still be far better off today than

we are. Right now the polluting is sponsored by the state .

Either committed directly by the government or by subsidising the

companies themselves.

>

> Nor can we rely on lawsuits, for two reasons. First, they come

after the

> fact, and second, large, rich corporations can throw ungodly

amounts of

> money at suits and win regardless of the merits most of the time.

============= Again based upon a wrong assumption. Rule number one

of doing good business DON'T KILL OR MAIM your customer. Pretty

simple stuff.

>

> >The notion that

> >free market is equivalent to PROFITS at ALL costs is pure and

> >absolute drivel and to state such clearly demonstrates a complete

> >and utter lack of under standing of what a real free market

economic

> >state would entail.

>

>

>

> -

I respect the manner in which you discuss health issues but you

are so off base on this. Before you suggest that pure free market

economics doesn't work you need to learn what it actually is and not

what someone told you what it was.

Health care is the perfect venue to discuss this matter. Look at

the health insurance industry. Typical modern day gross corporate

misconduct. My suggestion to fix the nationwide health care

insurance problem. ELIMINATE it. Yes that's right no more

government regulation and subsidy of the insurance industry. I know

some will shreik in horror but hear me out. Right now health care

costs set by hospitals and doctors are based upon " extracting the

maximum amount from the insurance company " not based upon the

concept of what the market will bear. It is an artificial market

created by the insurance companies that are propped up by the us

gov't.

If you removed insurance from the picture and send the high

falootin' docs into the marketplace to peddle their wares and

compete against each other they'd have no choice to set fair fees.

No $10 asprins or inflated office calls. There would be excellent

docs setting fair fees seeing good patients at every level of the

economic ladder. The government participation in this matter

amounts to free money. There are few human beings who can walk away

from free money. Right now most people choose their doctor and

hospital based upon their " insurance network " without insurance

they'd choose based upon qualifications, convenience and cost and

you can bet with the sheer number of physicians competing in that

marketplace that they'd be knocking eachother over to reduce their

fees and get some patients. I know this business like the back of

my hand and this is exactly what would happen. But it could only

happen in the absence of gov't regs as it did in the 30's and 40's

and years prior.

DMM

[Guest guest]

The minute a gov't subsidy is

> accepted you can kiss free market good bye. BUT, find the wealthy

free

> marketer that won't accept one.

===================== If there is no intrusive government making

legalized payoffs (subsidies) nobody can accept them. That's the

point. To have a true free market economy one must have a full

commitment to maintaining it.

Sure they exist, but markets are not states

> of " self-respect, " they are economic institutions. Institutions

are mindless

> frameworks within which mindful humans operate. Your idea of

a " real " free

> market depends on maximizing " self-respect " and assumes everyone

is

> environmentally conscious.

========================== No it doesn't my idea depends upon

businesses being FORCED to do good business. Once again DON'T KILL

OR MAIM YOUR CUSTOMER.

This is exactly the same as those that say " The

> Soveit Union wasn't REAL socialism... " and therefore avoid

answering to how

> their ideologies have played out practically in the world.

=================== I am aware of one thing here. Humans have

proven for thousands of years the inability to equitably govern

themselves. Governements have proven themselves to be fat, lazy and

burdensome. The less there is the better and that begins with an

unbridled economy that is based upon basic relationship

fundamentals. When you give a hugely profitable company the option

of paying or lobbying to get the ability to maim or kill their

customers they will do it for the short term gain as is done today.

The point is when you stop providing the opportunity they no longer

do it.

I am suggesting utopia. Not by tomorrow but if we want a solution

that works what else should we be suggesting.

DMM

[Guest guest]

I agree Michele but unfortunately its not likely.

Too many people clammoring for more gov't regs

and

Too many people making too much money as things are

look for it to get worse instead of better.

DMM

> I wish this would happen, then I could afford to go to the doctor

and have the kind of health care I really want.

>

> Michele

>

>

> If you removed insurance from the picture and send the high

> falootin' docs into the marketplace to peddle their wares and

> compete against each other they'd have no choice to set fair

fees.

> No $10 asprins or inflated office calls. There would be

excellent

> docs setting fair fees seeing good patients at every level of the

> economic ladder. The government participation in this matter

> amounts to free money. There are few human beings who can walk

away

> from free money. Right now most people choose their doctor and

> hospital based upon their " insurance network " without insurance

> they'd choose based upon qualifications, convenience and cost and

> you can bet with the sheer number of physicians competing in that

> marketplace that they'd be knocking eachother over to reduce

their

> fees and get some patients. I know this business like the back

of

> my hand and this is exactly what would happen. But it could only

> happen in the absence of gov't regs as it did in the 30's and

40's

> and years prior.

>

> DMM

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I agree with you, I just wish we at least had a choice in which

health insurance we used. The way I see it, then there would be some

competition and people would naturaly gravitate towards the highest

quality, lowest price network, which would certainly be very

different from what we have today. Because of Nixon wage controls,

health insurance got tied to employment. Then because of tax breaks

to employers the only affordable option for an individual is to get

insurance through your employer. I have a " choice " of one health

plan. how can there ever be improvement or progress in a system with

no choice, a monopoly.

In monopoly the system serves the interests of the suppliers (AMA,

drug company, insurance companies) not the consumer (you and me).

The monopoly would without the government laws, regulations, and tax

structure that keeps it alive.

> > I wish this would happen, then I could afford to go to the doctor

> and have the kind of health care I really want.

> >

> > Michele

> >

> >

> > If you removed insurance from the picture and send the high

> > falootin' docs into the marketplace to peddle their wares and

> > compete against each other they'd have no choice to set fair

> fees.

> > No $10 asprins or inflated office calls. There would be

> excellent

> > docs setting fair fees seeing good patients at every level of

the

> > economic ladder. The government participation in this matter

> > amounts to free money. There are few human beings who can walk

> away

> > from free money. Right now most people choose their doctor and

> > hospital based upon their " insurance network " without

insurance

> > they'd choose based upon qualifications, convenience and cost

and

> > you can bet with the sheer number of physicians competing in

that

> > marketplace that they'd be knocking eachother over to reduce

> their

> > fees and get some patients. I know this business like the back

> of

> > my hand and this is exactly what would happen. But it could

only

> > happen in the absence of gov't regs as it did in the 30's and

> 40's

> > and years prior.

> >

> > DMM

> >

> >

> >