metanet’s next game

failrate, while your story does show mass governmental inefficiency, my point was that governments -intend- to provide welfare. People’s lives are saved by police forces – or even the fact that there is a police force checking action – and a fire department. And I may be wrong on this, but I think volunteer firefighters are still funded publicly. If I’m wrong, feel free to point it out.

And to the previous null user, I agree that anarchists aren’t utopians. But while you did point out that cultures are different and it’s hard to predict the actions of stateless societies, since I think the will to live is fairly universal (as universal as we get) and the urge to be profitable is the urge of the capitalism you support, then weaker individuals (who have the will to live) will hire stronger individuals for protection, who, to be profitable, have to set up strict physical rules for their customers. As those rules expand and the protection companies gain in size, that protection agency soon finds itself a government. So anarchy still really would lead to government, unless people actively prevented them – and who could prevent the formation of a government besides a government?

Furthermore, I don’t think ALL central planning is ineffective. Sure, when one small group tries to create regulations for every aspect of society, the results will probably be disastrous. But there is a balance there for regulation, just a shaky one, and just as anarchy may incidentally create some bad situations, so would a regulatory system.

And I find the idea of market prices regulating themselves extremely hard to swallow – the free market’s self balance is the reason why Hersheys and Nestlea are buying the cheapest chocolate possible, and thus providing money to child slavery rings in the ivory coast.

The problem with market forces as the only regulator is that not all services function in the way we consider traditional business.

Consider hospitals. They’re inelastic, in that one HAS to go to one to survive in many case. And start up costs are extremely high, with the technology involved, so it’s hard to get the “new businesses” most economic freedom models rely on. Citizens MUST by from them, and new hospitals can no longer create competition. What you end up with is a monopoly citizens are forced to buy into, a monopoly which no longer has to worry about any competition, and thus can gouge prices to their own satisfaction.

This is a pretty undesirable situation, and at least SUGGESTS the need for regulation by an outside force.

Well, while your response is pretty witty, I think it does bring up one valid issue – the poor, or at least people with few resources, would not be able to afford fire protection, as their money would go to immediate food and shelter needs instead of insurance plans.

A man with a broken arm needs to go to the doctor. If he feels like the doctor is too expensive what is he going to do? Leave the hospital and drive to another. He can’t he has a broken arm.
Many medicines and tests are patented. Even genes can be patented. If you need the medicine or the test you have to pay whatever they want to charge.
These monopolistic situations don’t leave room for competition. There’s no self regulating free market mechanism at work here. If demand for these proprietary technologies increases the patent holders simply make more money. The price goes up. If you can’t afford it, too bad. There’s no reason not to charge as much as you can get.
In countries with more socialized healthcare programs the government sets the price it is willing to pay. Things end up costing subsantially less.
Check this out.
http://www.pc.gov.au/study/pbsprices/finalreport/
But wait, theres more, The Canadian government provides (mostly)free healthcare for it’s citizens, but spends only 57% of what the U.S government spends per capita. It’s weird huh? Somehow the U.S. government spends almost twice as much to provide only a fraction of the care.
More socialization equals not only cheaper health care but less government expenditure. In other words, even though it is common “knowledge” that buisness is more efficient than government, socialism would seem to result in a more efficient system.
The failure of neoliberal economic policies has been illustrated time and again. But strangely, it’s faliure is always used as a justification for it’s use.
“Maybe my head hurts because I didn’t hit it hard enough.”
This is similar to the logic of the anti-government government of the Bush administration which says “see, government doesn’t work. Look what a bad job we are doing.” Their incompetence becomes proof of their wisdom.
Man, someone should make a game with Noam Chomsky as the main character.
Or maybe an econimist fighting game
Smith vs. Marx

Fight Entropy,

“Somehow the U.S. government spends almost twice as much to provide only a fraction of the care. More socialization equals not only cheaper health care but less government expenditure. In other words, even though it is common ‘knowledge’ that buisness is more efficient than government, socialism would seem to result in a more efficient system.”

This statement makes no sense. You are equating government spending with “business.”

If you truly believe that socialism is more “efficient” than free enterprise, then how would you explain the collapse of the Soviet Union, or the fact that socialism has led to poverty and totalitarianism wherever it has been implemented in earnest? Just the wrong people in charge?

The Canadian government, along with many others, takes a piecemeal approach to socialism. It relies upon the free market for the economic prosperity that it can feed off of to pay for its massive spending on the health care bureaucracy. This in itself is an acknowledgement that socialism does not work. If it did work, why wouldn’t the government also provide food, clothing and all other goods and services? After all, it would be more “efficient,” right?

Faunis,

Socialism entails state ownership of the means of production and, consequently, the abolition of private property and destruction of the market’s price system. These were the conditions that existed in the Soviet Union and China, and still exist in North Korea, Cuba and a few other places in the world nobody wants to live.

Of course, socialized health care does not mean the full adoption of socialism to replace the market economy. But it does apply socialistic principles to one very important sector of the economy. To the degree that it does so, the provision of health care is made worse.

You argue that health care is “inelastic” and “without startup options” and so “needs to be socialized.” Yet it was the market, not government, that brought quality medical care to the masses in the first place! Hospitals and medical practices have been starting up and competing for the business of consumers in America since as early as the 19th century.

It is government intervention in the market that drives up prices. Even licensure and regulation of medical practitioners has the effect of curtailing the supply of health care, causing prices to rise. This is why the medical profession originally lobbied for such regulation — to reduce competition and thus increase the prices it could charge.

Universal healthcare (and to a lesser degree welfare programs like Medicare and Medicaid) removes the price tag from medical services, resulting in a rise in demand. The correlation between the individual’s consumption and the actual cost of that consumption is lost on him. He is not forced to make any economic tradeoff so he consumes far more health care than he would otherwise.

The market responds to a rise in demand with rising prices (increased profits), which in turn leads to an increase in supply. Prices are the signal that direct labor and capital to their most economical employment.

But under a socialized system, prices are fixed arbitrarily to keep costs down. This means demand will exceed supply and shortages will result because the people who would be providing for the increased demand in a free market are never brought into the fold by the market’s price signals.

All of this is borne out in reality. Great Britain has seen a steady decline in the numbers of its doctors and surgeons and has responded to this shortage by importing doctors from third-world countries. In Canada, shortages have resulted in infamously long waiting times for surgery that have led Canadians to seek treatment in the United States or elsewhere. Many people have died while waiting for heart surgery.

Complete privatization and deregulation of health care would be the best way to fix the US healthcare system. Likewise for every other country.

“In the early 1800’s, the prices for a doctor to start up a business were considerably smaller. Now, with high-priced technologies being expected of hospitals, one can’t simply start up a hospital from scratch – they have to become a doctor at an established institution, or else have the millions of dollars off hand that it would take to start up a competitive practice.”

And millions of dollars are available. People willing to invest in other people’s ideas and business ventures are an integral part of capitalism. This happens all the time.

“Without government regulation, the present-day hospital system would destroy itself. Even in the U.S., government rules are in place. Free market models ALWAYS rely on competition as an integral factor, and health care is one economic model where that competition doesn’t exist.”

Competition DOES exist in health care! The absence of competition (i.e. monopoly) means that entry into the market is blocked by force. For example: public utilities. That you can choose one doctor over another, and that doctors and hospitals advertise in newspapers and telephone books is proof that competition is taking place.

“Waiting lines are a problem. So are doctor shortages. This is a byproduct of the cause you cite – increased DEMAND. But what does that demand really mean? It means people can afford health care.”

You misunderstand. The rapid increase in demand that occurs under socialized health care is artificial. It happens because the person using the product (health care) is not presented with a bill. In his mind, there is no tradeoff or sacrifice involved, so he uses it far more than he would otherwise.

It is a fact of human nature that people will use more of something they don’t have to pay for. This is the source of increased demand for health care in a socialist system. If your bill for electricity was the same regardless of how much you used, or if there was no bill at all, you would probably keep you air conditioner running all night and day during the summer. Multiply that by millions and you understand why there would be an increase in demand.

“Sure, only letting the rich access health care would reduce waiting lines and the need for doctors.
But it means more people are dying because they can’t afford a doctor.
I don’t think this is a reality we want to live with.”

This is a red herring. The market provides increasingly better quality goods and services at lower prices. Think of food, which is a necessity of life. Think of luxuries like computers. This is a natural result of competition and capital investment. Health care would be very affordable if this process was not circumvented by government.

Of course, the rich at any period will be able to afford higher priced goods and services. This is part of the process that results in those goods and service becoming cheaper and more widely available. The rich provide demand for things that would otherwise be uneconomical to produce in the first place. The alternative would be not to have these newer and better goods and services at all.

It is important to remember, however, that today’s poor in America can afford better health care than the richest men of 100 years ago. And for the very poor there is charity, which would be even more widespread if not for the oppressive levels of taxation that exist today.

Your argument that it is impossible to start up a new hospital because it is expensive to do so just doesn’t hold water. If this were true, it would have been impossible for Dell, Wal-Mart and countless other big businesses to come into existence in already established fields, and to wrestle market share away from established competitors who arrived there first. I don’t know what else I can say to change your mind on this.

“And this is assuming venture capitalists act with the good of the people in mind and are willing to invest in hospitals as opposed to high-priced entertainment.”

You are thinking about this backwards. It is not the job of capitalists and entrepreneurs to decide what is the “good of the people.” Each individual decides what is best for himself and acts accordingly.

What is best for any businessman who wishes to stay in business is to learn what other people want. He cannot force them to buy what he is selling; therefore, he must offer something for which they will voluntarily exchange their money.

Strictly speaking, most everyone who does any kind of work is a businessman. Most of us sell our labor and the exact same principle applies. What can we do for which other people will pay us?

“I’m not sure a greed-fueled system can lead to social good.”

First of all, I wouldn’t call voluntary exchange a “greed-fueled system.” Certainly it is fueled by self-interest. Nobody wants to go hungry or live exposed to the elements.

The world in its natural state is inhospitable to human survival and comfort. The only way for man to live, to clothe and feed himself, and to improve his condition is for him to mix his labor with nature, to work and produce.

This being so, we have two choices: consume the product of other people’s labor by robbing from or enslaving those people; or trade with them by producing something of value ourselves and offering to exchange with them.

If we rob them, we benefit at their expense but the condition of humanity is not improved. Instead of having what they produced AND what we produced, we have only what they produced. Society is poorer and no advancement is made.

Voluntary exchange, or the division of labor under capitalism, is the better way for human beings to live and thrive. It is better morally AND economically.

“I think it’s more important for the U.S. to fix the problems of the present (millions in the U.S. dying of poverty and unable to afford cold medicine) than giving slight conveniences to the rich of the future.”

Come on! Millions of people are not dying of povery in the United States, nor are millions of people unable to afford cold medicine.

As I explained in an earlier post, the provision of health care in America has already been botched by government officials. The solution to this problem is not to let the same people take complete control over health care, but to get them out of it entirely.

Only in government is failure rewarded with more money and power. In the market, inefficiency and incompetence result in bankruptcy. The private businessman can not rob people indefinitly to keep his projects afloat.

Faunis,

“Millions of people AREN’T dying of poverty? I just checked off with the U.S. Census 2004 pdf, and the number of U.S. citizens in legal poverty is 37 Million. I doubt they’re lying.”

All that means is 37 million people meet the U.S. government’s criteria to be called poor. It does not mean they are dying in the streets. Most of them own television sets and cars. Many of them are obese as opposed to starving. They are not poor in the sense that people in Africa, Burma or North Korea are poor. They are poor relative to the average American today.

“If it’s so easy, heck, let’s scrape up some change and build a hospital.”

I never said it was easy. But until you can prove that no new hospitals are opening anywhere in the United States, this argument is pointless. It is made even more pointless by the fact that the current health care market in America is far from free; government intrusion is pervasive.

“We don’t have to rob people. But if we act as a union and establish ground rules for mutual benefit – not enslavements, but voluntary rules – then we won’t have to rely on self interest.”

If a group of people believe in socialized medicine, I have no problem with them entering into such an arrangement amongst themselves. The problem is when they try to force others into their plan. There is nothing voluntary about the state, its taxes and its laws.

“But I’d much rather that medical care be plagued with inefficiency, of good intent, than with money-mongering, if that’s the choice to be made.”

Again, you equate the desire to improve one’s living conditions with “money-mongering.” You are falling back on that old tactic of associating opposition to state planning with greed and/or lack of concern for the poor.

The free market is not a “system” imposed on us by government to serve the interests of greedy fat cats. It is the absence of government planning. It is millions of people freely and spontaneously engaging in peaceful, voluntary exchange without interference from third parties who think they know better.

It is not a “design flaw” of capitalism that people act out of self-interest. It is human nature. Government officials act out of self-interest as well, no matter how much we might fantasize that they work for the “public good.”

What you are doing is suspending reality in your analysis of government. You are assuming government acts with high-minded “good intent,” as if it were something other than a collection of mere humans with a dangerous amount of power over others.

A politician has to win regular elections or else find a new job. Guess which he would rather do?

Winning elections means, to a great extent, distributing spoils to various interest groups who then become dependent on the politician staying in office. To keep the benefits flowing, they shower him with votes and campaign contributions. It is a system of legalized bribery. This is why incumbents are seldom defeated.

Those politicians who don’t care about the money are often an even worse breed: the ones who love power.

These are the people who would necessarily be in charge of any centrally planned health care “system” imposed on us. I prefer freedom, which has a proven track record of improving our lives.

“Isn’t it possible to work for MORE than just your self preservation?”

Of course it is but one must provide for himself before he can serve any higher purpose.

A person’s choice of work often does reflect his values and interests rather than simply a desire to maximize material wealth. Game developers are a perfect example. Most people get into this field because they love video games, not because they are likely to become millionaires.

Self-interest is not mere self-preservation or greed. It is determined subjectively. A devout Christian, for instance, might weigh his decisions according to whether or not they will help him get to heaven.

I’ll leave the discussion here, only because I’m spending way too much time here. It’s been enjoyable. Thanks!

uhh, guys, this is a discussion about a game. why are we arguing about american medical care?

personally, i think it’s all too bureaucratic

english link exchange recipricol link exchange service backlinks.