BF2S Forums Usury

I look at this issue this way. There is no god given right to a profit. Take health care for example The US spends approximately 16 or 17% of GDP on health care and still not everyone is covered. Yet, other countries that have nationalized healthcare pay approximately 8% and everyone is covered. Half the cost for more service. That's a prime example of govt waste versus privatized greed and pretty much debunks the whole govt is wastful and worse. The govt intrusion will only be worse to those in the health insurance industry who will see their very healthy profit margins shrink or disappear.

What people are arguing is for an ideal, that the market is the best solution to ever problem. While the market is the most efficient delivery system in most circumstances because it acts to trim waste without govt intervention, the GDP figures on healthcare and the fact that not everyone is covered at those costs show that that ideal is a real world fail.

Now, as far as I see there is nothing in the constitution that prevents "the people" from deciding that a certain segment of the economy needs tighter regulation or that the people can't decide that the govt should become a direct actor in that market. I guess you could frame the debate into a wall street cultural debate where every aspect of human existance should be marketized and profited from versus a main street cultural view of the AMerican dream where if you are industrious and work hard you will be able to not only afford the necessities of life but you will also be able to get ahead.

Healthcare is inelastic and its a need and the real problem arises when you step into a hospital and you don't know the price you are going to be charged upfront and you have no choice but to seek medical attention. Now you put that helpless consumer into a market meat grinder where the insurance company, the hospital, the doctor and all the related services are all seeking profit maximization, personally I can't think of a scenerio that cries out more for govt intervention to protect the welfare of the individual and the general public.



Now as for the debate over monopolies, at least in the health care debate the health care industry is acting in a monopolistic fashion. Supply is artificially limited when people are denied coverage and the entire industry operates in an uncompetitive fashion where profit maximization is sustained by the cost controls where coverage to sick people is denied. In other words, the industry profits from sickness.


Anyway, its kind of funny to think that if healthcare costs were cut back to a level comparable to other countries, say 8% GDP, that it would look like an 7% or 8% hit on GDP but would actually be a net benefit to consumers and would in fact free up 8% of GDP for saving and spending. It would be a huge stimulus and place the US economy on firmer ground regarding healthcare costs and the uncertainty of bankrupties caused by outrageous healthcare costs.


As far as microsoft and other industries, those industries are merely "wants" and you can look at the video card industry or the memory stick industry, where the exit of the consumer due to high prices can cause quick shifts in the marketing of the products. If you don't have to buy the product then you have a real choice. But in health care, that choice is an illusion that disappears right around the time you actualy get sick.

lowing wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

lowing wrote:

You dislike monopolies, well what the hell do you think a govt controlled program is? Monopolies are not allowed in the US in the US private sector..

Ummm Microsoft?

In the end you don't have one several monopolies, but you get a couple of large businesses working together to buttfuck the local people. Has everybody forgotten about the progressive and reconstruction era?

There should be a strong balance between private and a public banking system. If citizens are unhappy with their government theres one simple thing: RIOT.

Ummmm Apple? Microsoft does not have a monopoly. the problem is, much like beta and vhs, microsoft won the marketing wars. Now, the tide is turning and Apple is getting noticed as the better system.

Uh, no.  Apple is and always will be a boutique company.  They aren't designed to be the company that dominates the PC market, and I really don't think they want to, because the only way you can viably dominate the PC market is to lower your profit margin to something more along the lines of Microsoft.  Apple simply charges too much for most people to be interested in their products (other than certain media devices like the Ipod).

Apple does dominate the small media device market though.

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

They own 90% pf the PC market because the consumer allows this. they want the Microsoft product.

Microsoft owns Apple? I did not know this. Does Steve Jobs know this?

Yeah, it's a conspiracy against the consumer

Microsoft:
A) Doesn't have a monopoly and
B) has been losing market share for years now. Windows Vista was awful
C) People generally choose Microsoft OS because there are a lot of programs written for it. It's easy to code in Windows. The same can NOT be said for Mac OS. What may make it so easy to write viruses for a PC also makes it easy for you to be playing BF2.

Actually, Bill Gates owns a large stake in Apple.  What he's doing isn't that odd though.

There are a lot of markets where CEOs of one company will buy a stake in a competitor, because it essentially involves playing both sides.

This is similar to how most big business funds both parties nearly equally, so that, no matter who wins an election, they have influence.

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

turquise, the difference is, choice. We are able to choose who in the private sector we want to do business with. Consumers have power to make a business successful or force them to fail. The private sector can ill afford bad press, which has brought many companies down. With govt. they lie to get power, and it is years before any changes can be made and then it is too late and the damage is done..This, if for no other reason is why the private sector is better than govt.

Your argument would be more applicable in a market that isn't powerful enough to force the government to get bailouts.  As long as bailouts are part of the equation, it's not really about choice.

Banking is, by far, the most powerful market in our economy.  Consumers really don't have a lot of power to determine who rises and who falls, because the basis of our economy is credit.  As long as fractional reserve banking exists, banks are literally creating money out of nothing via interest.

So again, your argument only applies to markets that are more competitive and less powerful.

Yes it still is, one has nothing to do with the other. Corrupt govt. stole our money and come election time they will pay for it because their empty promises did not ring true. Power to the people, the consumer IS in control, and govt. and coorporations bow to our whims.

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Ummm Microsoft?

In the end you don't have one several monopolies, but you get a couple of large businesses working together to buttfuck the local people. Has everybody forgotten about the progressive and reconstruction era?

There should be a strong balance between private and a public banking system. If citizens are unhappy with their government theres one simple thing: RIOT.

Ummmm Apple? Microsoft does not have a monopoly. the problem is, much like beta and vhs, microsoft won the marketing wars. Now, the tide is turning and Apple is getting noticed as the better system.

Uh, no.  Apple is and always will be a boutique company.  They aren't designed to be the company that dominates the PC market, and I really don't think they want to, because the only way you can viably dominate the PC market is to lower your profit margin to something more along the lines of Microsoft.  Apple simply charges too much for most people to be interested in their products (other than certain media devices like the Ipod).

Apple does dominate the small media device market though.

Right now yes, but the consumer is rapidly realizing that Apple is a supperior product and buying 1 expensive Mac is cheaper than buying and upgrading several IBMs. Again the peopel decide. It is about choice. If Microsoft wants to keep their market share they are going to have to start doing back flips for the consumer.

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Yes it still is, one has nothing to do with the other. Corrupt govt. stole our money and come election time they will pay for it because their empty promises did not ring true. Power to the people, the consumer IS in control, and govt. and coorporations bow to our whims.

Again.  The government currently bows to the whims of corporations.  This would become less that way when banking is governmental rather than private.

Until then, big banking has a lot of influence on government, which renders the power of the consumer inconsequential, unless you're a big business leader.

They did, yes and they will pay for it at election time. People are fed the fuck up with govt. control. The people will choose the path of the will of the people and  not the will of govt.

Well, I will say there is one major flaw with my argument.  It's not probably one you'd expect me to mention, but it is true.

The will of the people is not a coherent political path.  More often than not, people respond most positively to the best rhetoric and charisma of the choices available.  So, given this logic, it is true that having government run banking more directly does have its caveats.

The only saving grace to this is the fact that, with more direct control, there is at least more of a glimmer of hope that the people will be somewhat responsible in holding officials accountable.

Obviously, as things currently stand, this is a very debatable assumption.

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Uh, no.  Apple is and always will be a boutique company.  They aren't designed to be the company that dominates the PC market, and I really don't think they want to, because the only way you can viably dominate the PC market is to lower your profit margin to something more along the lines of Microsoft.  Apple simply charges too much for most people to be interested in their products (other than certain media devices like the Ipod).

Apple does dominate the small media device market though.

Right now yes, but the consumer is rapidly realizing that Apple is a supperior product and buying 1 expensive Mac is cheaper than buying and upgrading several IBMs. Again the peopel decide. It is about choice. If Microsoft wants to keep their market share they are going to have to start doing back flips for the consumer.

Uh... no.  Microsoft also dominates the market because of software choices.  For example, if you want to make a gaming computer, you can pretty much forget about buying a Mac.  Very few graphically intensive games come out for Macs.

Business applications are also much more sparse for Macs.  About the only market where Macs dominate is audiovisual editing.  Initially, this was because the software for Macs was more user-friendly, but this angle has become much less significant now.  If anything, the continued popularity of Macs in this field is more connected to image than actual performance.  People assume that PCs are harder to work with.  Windows has become a lot more user-friendly in its latest incarnations, and the aesthetic differences in their GUIs is becoming less signficant as well.

Still, Apple will likely continue to thrive as a niche company.

Fine but is this by LAW or did the market decide the outcome of this.

Batamax or VHS, was it law that decided that VHS would win this war or was it the market?

It is not Microsofts "fault" that it is the most desired OS. It won the marketing war, time for people to get over it. What are you expecting, that they should sabotage their own success in the name of competition?

Free market prevails

Cameron you might as well get it done and convert to Islam but remember it is a one way trip.

lowing wrote:

Fine but is this by LAW or did the market decide the outcome of this.

Batamax or VHS, was it law that decided that VHS would win this war or was it the market?

It is not Microsofts "fault" that it is the most desired OS. It won the marketing war, time for people to get over it. What are you expecting, that they should sabotage their own success in the name of competition?

Free market prevails

I'm ok with the market clearing itself to an extent, but when oligopolies emerge, certain regulations must be in place to protect consumers.

CameronPoe wrote:

Stubbee wrote:

Cameron you might as well get it done and convert to Islam but remember it is a one way trip.

Huh? Why would I want to engage in delusional activities?

to fit it with the rest of what you perceive as "reality"? Ya know like saving until you are almost dead then buy a house to raise your grown children.

CameronPoe wrote:

a) The OP is not a feasible proposition and was never meant to be. It was meant to generate debate.

In theory we would have a much more sustainable economy here in the US. 

CameronPoe wrote:

b) I don't quite understand why you of all people should be such a strong advocate of owning things that you haven't yet earned and potentially don't deserve.

I am sick and tired of people feeling they deserve something just because a bank is willing to front them the money for it as well.

CameronPoe wrote:

c) The OP hypothetical situation would actually entail history having taken an entirely different course, to implement it now would involve the entire world hitting the reset button. And having said all that I am not exactly a proponent of it - I am open to arguments.

A strong curtailing of available credit would be a great thing.  Credit to purchase larger items or to fund business ventures would be fine as long as loans for these were given judiciously.  Using credit for purchasing a new pair of shoes is just crazy.

Lowing wrote:

to fit it with the rest of what you perceive as "reality"? Ya know like saving until you are almost dead then buy a house to raise your grown children.

Being of the personal responsibility ilk as you are I would think you would see the merits of a credit free society.

LividBovine wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

a) The OP is not a feasible proposition and was never meant to be. It was meant to generate debate.

In theory we would have a much more sustainable economy here in the US. 

CameronPoe wrote:

b) I don't quite understand why you of all people should be such a strong advocate of owning things that you haven't yet earned and potentially don't deserve.

I am sick and tired of people feeling they deserve something just because a bank is willing to front them the money for it as well.

CameronPoe wrote:

c) The OP hypothetical situation would actually entail history having taken an entirely different course, to implement it now would involve the entire world hitting the reset button. And having said all that I am not exactly a proponent of it - I am open to arguments.

A strong curtailing of available credit would be a great thing.  Credit to purchase larger items or to fund business ventures would be fine as long as loans for these were given judiciously.  Using credit for purchasing a new pair of shoes is just crazy.

Lowing wrote:

to fit it with the rest of what you perceive as "reality"? Ya know like saving until you are almost dead then buy a house to raise your grown children.

Being of the personal responsibility ilk as you are I would think you would see the merits of a credit free society.

100% agreed.