The latest EconTalk features Pete Boettke talking about what makes Austrian economics both different and useful.
where orders emerge
EconTalk Podcast
Recent Episodes-
where orders emerge
The latest EconTalk features Pete Boettke talking about what makes Austrian economics both different and useful.
Recent Episodes
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 50 comments }
Excellent, excellent podcast. Thanks very much.
I recommend it to anyone interested in economics.
I agree, great podcast agan. Thanks. Still I have problems seeing a consistency to any economic theory. Everything in the Austrain view comes down to individual actions and choice. Income inequality is not something that policy can effect? Yet when a goverment sets poicy to build a raod the individuals who's towns now have a road have more trade options and more choices. The Fed manages "centrally" to control the market and effects indivduals choices and market efficiency. Income inequality seemed to be much less under the policies post FDR until 1970. And now with policies more smiliar to the 20's we see inequality skyrocketing again.
I just don't see how you can make an arguement that the economy is even as simple as understanding individual choices. Policy obviously matters from everything inequality to the available choices.
Free trade and inovation work as long as the government doesn't screw them up?
Kinda like saying the horse and his jockey will make good time as long as the track tenders don't screw them up.
Left out this follow on to my analogy….So do you not want track tenders at all? Can you argue they are useless? Or do you want the best track tenders you can find?
Muirgeo,
Austrians don't argue that policy is irrelevant. The fact that individual choice is central simply means that "society" doesn't choose the level of inequality we want. Society doesn't choose the policies that might affect it such as taxes.
Actually, I think you'd have a hard time showing that inequality is rising today because of particular policies, even tax policies. The level of inequality is the result of thousands of individual decisions about education, entrepreneurship and so on. Yes, tax policy, for example, can affect the outcomes. But it's not obvious that tax policy has the intended effects. Raising taxes on the rich will generally INCREASE pre-tax inequality, offsetting some if not all of the changes intended.
Keep listening and reading.
"Income inequality is not something that policy can effect? "
I think the argument was made that it is impossible to reduce income inequality – without other harmful side-effects. It is not such a problem to make people more unequal….
"I just don't see how you can make an arguement that the economy is even as simple as understanding individual choices. "
Why then do most non-austrian schools ABSTRACT FROM individual choices? You abstract to make things simple, not to make them complex..?
Do you suggest that describing a system with interacting individuals making choices – is simple?
Andy,
What you imply or suggest is exactly correct. The choices made by interacting individuals is so numerous and complex that that is why no government, no group, no committee, no Congress can possibly interfere with their regulations and improve things. The very fact that they try is the source of the injustice.
What muirduck simply can not understand is that individuals are just that, individuals. Even the most submissive socialist drone is still exercising individual choice in his/her deciding to be a socialist drone. No one forces it on them.
Since there are over six billion individuals on the planet today, it can be correctly said that there are over six billion markets on the planet today.
Intelligently regulate that you useless socialist drones.
Heh heh heh. Inevitably to remain true to the cause, minarcho-Libbers have to migrate towards anarcho-Libertarianism. Otherwise you're stuck with explaining to anarchos- as to what amount to 'good government', 'good taxes', 'good regulation', etc.
Celebrating again with a wee bit of the bubbly or single malt, Gil?
When you sober up, come back and tell us what you said that you thought was so clever.
Is it not a great insight of the Austrian School that a person's income is largely dependent on that individual's productivity? Technological advance can increase productivity, but is unpredictable. Neither can politicians change our God given abilities. That is why government policy seems destined to fail, it might even make things worse.
What!? Long suffering vidyohs who constantly complains how evil guvmints and statists are still won't make the full transition to a anarcho-Libertarian? If guvmints destroy everything they touch then why say all guvmint is wrong and everything should be privatized and everyone should fend for themselves on the open market? The productivity rise to the top and the slackers will finally fall by the wayside.
Raising taxes on the rich will generally INCREASE pre-tax inequality, offsetting some if not all of the changes intended.
Keep listening and reading.
Posted by: Russ Roberts
Again I'm not sure history bears that out. Pre-JFK I believe we had a seriously progressive tax structure and far less inequality. Likewise the social democracies in Europe don't seem to bear that out as well.
I'm interested to see you talk of pre-tax inequality. Is this something used regularly in the economic vernacular? If so I must pat myself on the back as I've come to figure out "independently" the idea of pre-tax "inequality" or "pre-tax wealth re-distribution". Anyway I don't favor a return to those incredibly progressive taxes because I believe pre-tax inequality is more properly addressed in other "fairer" more market friendly ways.
I guess the big problem I have is understanding how an Austrian run economy wouldn't devolve into a society of Lords, Vassals and serf as greater and greater concentrations of wealth are made… and made all the more easily by complex markets, market speculators and financiers who add little productivity to society or the economy yet suck up the slightest of excess profits from the working class.
Muirgeo,
The "rise in inequality" isn't neatly timed in the data to pre-JFK or post-JFK tax policy. I put in the quotes because it is hard to measure, can be measured in different ways and it's not obvious that changes in any particular measure can be attributed to particular forces.
The real question is whether the concentration of wealth that you worry about has a natural dynamic that causes it to keep getting more and more concentrated. My reading of the world is that are natural forces (competition and complacency) that make it difficult to keep accumulating wealth. You seem to think only government can prevent that wealth from getting more concentrated. It's an empirical question. I would suggest that many government policies (particularly in other countries) create and sustain the concentration of wealth. So concentrating power in the government doesn't guarantee a more egalitarian society even if such a society is your goal.
"I guess the big problem I have is understanding how an Austrian run economy wouldn't devolve into a society of Lords, Vassals and serf as greater and greater concentrations of wealth are made.."
First, the big problem is finding out, whether a free unrestrained competition process has greater tendency to dvelve into society of Lords and Vassals then a concentration of power in the hands of democratically elected government.
The second problem is that concentration of wealth per-se does not mean society of Lords and Vassals. Being 'Vassal' has more to do with absolute wealth then with relative wealth. Thus, even if there was concentration of wealth and rise in inequality, the society of Lords and Vassals wouldn't still exist if the poor were rich enough. I think that the austrian school concludes that the income tends to be the discounted marginal product, which gets higher with more capital accumulation – thus even less productive people benefit from capital accumulation. BTW: income inequality in China got lower when China adopted more capitalism and less socialism.
Gil,
Eating breakfast and drinking coffee is not sobering up, it just makes an awake drunk.
Again, come back when you are sober.
Thanks.
Uh huh . . .
From TPM Cafe;
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/dec/13/boy_have_we_got_an_inequality_problem
"The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) just updated their invaluable data series on income inequality and the results are startling.
…
Over those two years, the growth of inequality transferred $400 billion dollars from the bottom 95% to the top 5%. That is, had the income distribution remained as it was in 2003, the income of each of the 109 million households in the bottom 95% would have been $3,660 higher in 2005."
Are the top 5% working that much harder?
Is this a result of free market economies or fixed/ manipulated markets?
This is a stunning finding. Advocates of Liberal economics need to be very careful IMO how they answer this question.
IMO either "free markets" create greater income inequality or we have markets that are manipulated/tilted towards re-distribution of pre-tax dollars towards those who already have a lot.
My thesis is when our system "deregulates", at least the way things are set up here, the markets become MORE "fixed", more opened up to gaming and for transfers of wealth upwards as those that have money and also have access to the processes that tilt things further in their favor. And the way these transfers in wealth opccur are NOT market competitive.
The "deregulationist" keep telling me we need to deregulate further yet THIS is always the result.
Deregulation in our system under Reagan and Bush has invariably led to huge increases in spending (much of it going to corporate welfare).
I listen and listen to the Liberal economist talk and I here all kinds of nice theoretical disscussions but I se no real worldevidence to back up the claims. Likewise I would also like tyo learn more about how we get to a liberal economy with out the greed needed to run an economy spilling over into political manipulation of the economy.
Suggested readings to address these issues would be much appreciated.
$3,600 per year more…that's huge. That's terrible for our middle class.
@muirgeo
Total public debt outstanding 12/31/2002: $6.4 trillion. Total public debt outstanding 12/12/2007: $9.1 trillion. Who is going to pay that debt? Not the lower class and middle classes. (in 2005, the top 10% of income earners payed 50% of income taxes).
income taxesfederal taxes.Kurt,
Trust me the lower classes are anxious to pay more taxes if it's the result of greater income.
Further, that debt you listed, a lot of it went to pay very wealthy people. The wealthiest people are quite happy that we have a debt and quite happy that it's gonna be paid by the next generation.
"Raising taxes on the rich will generally INCREASE pre-tax inequality, offsetting some if not all of the changes intended."
Agreed. The powerful adapt to higher taxes. The basic process hasn't changed over the millenia – the king taxes the nobles and the nobles tax the serfs. While it is possible for the king to ruin the nobles, he can't do it without also ruining the serfs.
"Deregulation in our system under Reagan and Bush has invariably led to huge increases in spending (much of it going to corporate welfare)."
Oops? Can you explain how DEregulation leads to INCREASES in spending? That's oxymoron, isn't it?
Though, I would argue that increase in spending and corporate welfare does indeed increase income inequality.
Oops? Can you explain how DEregulation leads to INCREASES in spending? That's oxymoron, isn't it?
Posted by: andy
It's a good question. But do you question that since Reagan the trend has been towards deregulation? There might be some actual debate there but no one can debate that the Republicans claim to be for deregulation. Also do you question that the national debt ballooned since then.
See they claim to deregulate and then they privatize…private mercenary armies, private prisons, privatize army hospitals (Walter Reed) ect… when privatization is simply a means of passing money through to their supporters who in-turn use their profits to fund their candidates.
It's a terrible system. it's the reason, IMO, why we have massive redistribution from the working class to the political class. The ties between money, elections and policy need to be severed completely. Money is bribery NOT free speech.
If you want any chance of free markets I'd argue you must have a wall of separation from the markets, the electoral process and the policy makers as big as the wall that supposed to sperate church and state.
"It's a good question. But do you question that since Reagan the trend has been towards deregulation? There might be some actual debate there but no one can debate that the Republicans claim to be for deregulation. Also do you question that the national debt ballooned since then."
Correlation is not causality. Somebody claiming that he is proposing deregulation does not make it true. Privatization of regulation is not free market – it is fascism. Free market is absence of regulation. Tax cuts are not important, cuts in government spendig are.
Anyway, the question was about free markets and the alleged deregulation in the last several decades that should somehow prove that the current rising inequality is caused by LESS government regulation. Can you tell us which government regulation was repealed recently? Can you write how did the government cut spending? Can you support your statement that there is deregulation going on?
If you want free markets you need less government. No "wall" can ever help. Church can exist without power because they provide other "services". Government without power is not government.
Whether or not the last 30 years have been one of de-regulation or not. I will point out that the push for "de-regulation" began under President Carter, as both parties reached a mild consensus that they had managed to regulate the economy to a standstill. De-regulation began with the airlines and trucking and with, if I can remember right, backing from Senator Edward Kennedy. While the actual repeal of regulations in the past 30 years has been sparse–despite the occasional flurries (telecommunications, ergonomics standards)–the improvements have been in the regulatory process itself, as Presidents, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II have either added or kept the impediments (cost benefit analysis, more review etc.) added to slow the regulatory process. At the same time, if the regulatory process stays still, then it does give the economy time to grow and innovate around exisitng regulations.
Under Bush II, relatively few regulations have been repealed (and many of those that have had faced reversals in the courts), but at the same time the regulatory process itself has slowed considerably, as the level of regulatory review at the federal level has arguably increased.
At the same time, we should take note that many of the new industries that have sprung up since the 7os have been relatively unregulated (internet, computers, software, etc.), as compared to the new industries that srpung up in the 30s (radio (since liberalized) and airlines (since liberalized). Sorry for the length, but if I had to make a from the hip guess (and these things are very hard to measure), I would say that, while regulation grows it is growing slower than the innovation and growth needed to counter it. At the same time, it is hard to dispute that the "deregulation" of specific industries trucking, airlines, telecommunications, etc. has not created considerable savings and value for consumers.
Sorry got twisted in that last sentence. I meant to say that it is hard to dispute that the deregulation of certain industries has created considerable savings and value for customers.
Apologies.
Whoops, the paper didn't get delivered today so I won't have the comics to read for relief, but thank God I can always go to Cafe Hayek and look for anything from muirduck to get my laughs. For instance everything above that has his signature will do to replace any fantasy comic strip one might look to read.
Can you believe that anyone is still writing such tripe?
""See they claim to deregulate and then they privatize…private mercenary armies, private prisons, privatize army hospitals (Walter Reed) ect… when privatization is simply a means of passing money through to their supporters who in-turn use their profits to fund their candidates.
It's a terrible system. it's the reason, IMO, why we have massive redistribution from the working class to the political class. The ties between money, elections and policy need to be severed completely. Money is bribery NOT free speech.""
Posted by: muirgeo | Dec 13, 2007 6:17:37 PM
Ha! Ha! Ha! Oh choke snort and wheeze!
I am working class and the only evil entity taking from me (redistributing) is government through their laws and regulations.
I have never (has anyone else ever) walked into a WMT or Krogers and thought, "What a terrible system! These evil bastards are providing me with quality goods and exceptional prices…..the dirty shits!"
God, snort, wheeze, and chortle, ha ha ha! It is simply too much!
Russ,
I am sorry about this but one just can't help but have fun with someone like muirduck.
How can the below be passed up, Russ?
""Again I'm not sure history bears that out. Pre-JFK I believe we had a seriously progressive tax structure and far less inequality. Likewise the social democracies in Europe don't seem to bear that out as well.
Posted by: muirgeo | Dec 13, 2007 1:59:00 AM""
I mean how can anyone be stupid enough to say "we had seriously progressive tax structure and far less inequality" and not know how badly he has contradicted himself in just 10 words? It is so funny!
What kind of creature is this muirduck? He/she/it seems to fancy itself as an intellect, but the performance is pure comedy.
. . . "I am working class and the only evil entity taking from me (redistributing) is government through their laws and regulations" . . .
Muirgeo,
"It's a terrible system. it's the reason…why we have massive redistribution from the working class to the political class. The ties between money, elections and policy need to be severed completely. Money is bribery NOT free speech."
I do not disagree with your conclusion, the current system does in fact redistribute money from the working class to the political class, but I think its important to understand how the current system was created – that is, working class voters manipulated by progressive confidence artists. Also, there will never, ever, be a separation between money, elections, and policy. The policy makers only exist because the opportunity to make money exists. As long as there are sheep, there will be those who specialize in shearing them.
"Also, there will never, ever, be a separation between money, elections, and policy. The policy makers only exist because the opportunity to make money exists. As long as there are sheep, there will be those who specialize in shearing them."Randy
Why do you insist on this? I disagree. We can make bank robbers illegal, we can make gifts to doctors illegal, we can make insider trading illegal… we certainly can make obvious political bribery and conflicts of interest illegal. And we can massively overhaul our electoral system.
There are many good people who would make good politicians. I really believe there are 2 types of people. Some set out greedy as hell to make money anyway they can with no concerns for the means by which they get it. They are not necessarily bad people but not good people to have in office. Our current money driven system puts those people in high office. Other's and I include myself set out to do good things with hopes of being recognized for those good things being a greater incentive then money. Those are the people a moneyless political system will elect. They aren't perfect either but cutting ties between their political office and the monied interest is the only way to get good policy.
Otherwise you might as well totally forget about any libertarian society because it will always devolve into what we have now. Corrupted markets, high spending and a tax system that in total reward cheating and redistributes money upwards from the hard working middle class to the people who see great accumulations of wealth as some sort of great goal.
Muirgeo,
"There are many good people who would make good politicians."
Of course there are, and just the kind of folks that the idealists who wrote the Constitution had in mind, but in the real world such people don't run for political office. In the real world, the type of person attracted to political office is the confidence artist (con is short for confidence, by the way. A con artist specializes in gaining, manipulating, and profiting from people's trust).
"Those are the people a moneyless political system will elect."
No. In the real world, a moneyless system won't attract anyone – at least no more than a highway without roadkill attracts buzzards. A few may gather in hopes, but they'll move along in a short while if no opportunities appear.
"…you might as well totally forget about any libertarian society…"
I have. The idea of a libertarian society surviving over any period of time is absurd. It might be possible to create one, but as soon as it started to prosper, the political class would gather en masse. My objective is simple subversion. To constantly remind the bastards of what they really are.
"We can make bank robbers illegal, we can make gifts to doctors illegal, we can make insider trading illegal… we certainly can make obvious political bribery and conflicts of interest illegal."
Of course you can make it illegal. And what next? Can you get away with drugs by making them illegal? No. It boils down to the question: why you can reduce certain bad behaviour (fraud, theft, robbery) and it is practically impossible to reduce another (drugs, insider trading, race/gender discrimination…). I believe that abuse of government power falls into the second category.
"There are many good people who would make good politicians."
That is right. And these people would mostly not try to become politicians. The other side of the coin is that politicians face incentives to become 'bad' – so that even if you take perfectly 'good' people to politics, they will on average behave much worse.
"Otherwise you might as well totally forget about any libertarian society because it will always devolve into what we have now."
That is possible, but it does not follow. Libertarians would say that all that is needed is to eliminate bad behaviour in the first category. Second category crimes would either not exist without state or the private institutions could be easily changed so that such crime would then fall into the first category. Which reminds me that there would be no taxes in libertarian society….
Randy,
You may be the realist. I can only hope you are wrong. During the Dark Ages it may have looked like there was no better way but out of the ashes of the plague democracy and the Renaissance was born. I think we're destined for better things. I just hope the equivalent of a plague is needed to hurdle us forward.
That being said the individualist in me says that 99% of the worlds problems would be solved if only every person chose to have their children when they were in all ways prepared to care for them.
Muirgeo,
I think rhetoric is fun, but as history is another hobby of mine, I'd have to say that things are actually looking pretty good. Six point some billion people on the planet kind of says it all. By any objective standard, homo sapiens is an enormously successful species. In fact, what we call "problems" are really just a consequence of the very same competitive nature that has led to our success. That said, it occurs to me that perhaps my perspective is just too broad for the kind of political details that some would have me focus on. A bit of income inequality is a major concern for them, and just a bit of normal friction to me. If I notice it at all it has the appearance of natural justice. So anyway, you'll probably keep trotting out the same "problems" and I'll keep dismissing them out of hand. What the hell – it fills the time.
So anyway, you'll probably keep trotting out the same "problems" and I'll keep dismissing them out of hand. What the hell – it fills the time.
Posted by: Randy
But this is where I have a hard time understanding the poistions many take here. If the subject is single payor health care or increasing taxes on the wealthiest all of a sudden policy matters. But if it's Blackwater or lobbyist writing policy or the Oil Industry using my tax dollars to get their product to the market all of a sudden I'm told the world is a Darwinian place..relax, don't worry about such "problems" and enjoy the ride.
I'm not sure what one who's sees the world in such a way decides to instill as values that matter to their children.
As to different responses to different problems; good point.
As to instilling values in children; My hope has always been that mine would be able to think for themselves. I believe I have succeeded.
"As to different responses to different problems; good point."
Sorry Randy, but it's not a good point. Most libertarians on this site have repeatedly condemned corporate welfare.
Our question-ducking friend only gets mad when HIS pocket is picked. What Muirgeo is really annoyed with is that libertarians condemn all redistribution of income, and Muirgeo WANTS other people to pay for his health care.
Brotio,
I've paid for my own health care my whole life. So wanting universal health care is not something I want just for me. You can't use the argument that I want YOU topay for my healthcare.
Still wanting universal health care is not completely an act of alturism but is also in my self-interest.
I live in a society of people who are inter-related and inter-dependent. My "health" or well being is in some degree dependent on the health of that society.
IMO our society, the society I live and depend on, will be better off with universal health care.
See the difference between me and you bro is that I'm able to admit to my partial dependence on society. You still live under the delusion that you are a completely dependent self made person. And for that you will pay $3-4,ooo more per year for your health insurance. Mostly just to make some middle men wealthy. Likewise, the markets in which you do business in this society will be LESS competitive and less effecient because of your self-delusion.
Again even Hayek agrees with me on health insurance. So you really don't have much to stand on cept your own stubborness.
But I am glad to hear you are with me on the corporate wealth-fare crap even though you have no solution to the issue. You simply keep insisting on setting up a society that will only breed more corpoarate welfare and corrupt markets further. While I recognize that good markets need good government.
"Still wanting universal health care is not completely an act of alturism but is also in my self-interest."
I am starting to understand objectivism. Universal health care is NOT in your self-interest unless you are part of the <1% of population that would not be able to afford it and at the same time would not be helped by some kind of charity/lower rates/etc. Are you aware that everyone except those extremely unfortunate(and owners of some corporations) would be significantly worse off?
First, why do you propose monopoly health-care when monopolies are bad? Are you trying to solve a problem with another problem? Second: Governement cannot be run like business. Expecting that you establish universal health care and nothing changes except some cost savings is lunacy.
"…even though you have no solution to the issue." – Muirduck (HT Vidyohs)
I do have a solution to the problem. Limit the power and scope of government – dramatically.
You want the government to have the power to decide who gets what health care, when and how. You're the one who believes that the government should have the power to decide how and when a person should retire. You're the one constantly wanting government to pick my pocket. You're the one who can't see the difference between income redistribution and infrastructure.
You consistently use the same rhetoric about the rich that Marx and Engel used, and then ask that the dictatorship of the proletariat do something about all those rich people. If they're rich and you're not, then it must be because they're jobbing the system. It couldn't POSSIBLY be that they're smarter than you, or simply had an idea that millions of consumers were willing to pay for.
You're the one in favor of giving the government all of this power over our daily lives, and then act surprised that those with wealth and/or political connections will lobby the government in order to get it to not exercise quite as much power over them as it does the rest of us. You want to bestow politicians with the power of God, and then are amazed that they're merely mortals who will be tempted by that power and will use it.
I understand that the only way to eliminate that problem is to stop giving politicians so much power over our life-and-death decisions, and over our day-to-day lives. You don't LIKE my solutions because they don't allow you to pick my pocket, but you can't say I haven't offered any.
Brotio,
I hear you, but seriously, if we're not going to get upset about inequality and the like, why should we get upset over taxes that are higher than we like? Inequality is a fact of life – so there's no point in worrying about it. And government run by and for con artists is also a fact of life – and so there's no point in worrying about it. The trick, it seems to me, is to understand the world and oneself, match abilities to reality, and make the best of it. If one has a useful product to sell, then sell it. If one is a good con artist, then run for office. There's no point in wasting time on worry. Just as they say, it takes all kinds.
Randy,
I agree that inequality of outcome is a fact of life, so I'm not concerned with how much money Bill Gates, etc. make.
I also agree that politics draws con artists, which is why I want to limit their power. So it does make sense to be upset about high taxes. Restricting the money that politicians can play with reduces the scope of the cons they can pull. I'm not quite so jaded (yet :p) that it's a waste of time trying to rein in that power.
Are you aware that everyone except those extremely unfortunate(and owners of some corporations) would be significantly worse off?
Posted by: andy
I think that's a very debatable point. It's presumptuous on your part in light of the prevailing evidence. EVERY SINGLE other developed nation has a form of universal health coverage and every single one pays far less and has as good of outcomes as we do.
Brotio,
Yeah, jaded sounds about right. I think our only real choice in government is between con artists and murderous tyrants. Given the choices, I have to go with con artists.
"You're the one who can't see the difference between income redistribution and infrastructure." – brotio
Actually plenty Austrian economists can't see the difference either and want the government disbanded completely and private enterprises taking over the 'infrastructure'.
"Actually plenty Austrian economists can't see the difference either and want the government disbanded completely and private enterprises taking over the 'infrastructure'." – Gil
Actually, the only two people I've ever read on this site who can't see the difference are you and Muirduck (HT Vidyohs).
Those of us with a libertarian bent believe that there are lots of infrastructure jobs that could be more efficiently handled by private enterprise, but I haven't seen any of them equate that with the evil of stealing the property of one citizen and giving it to another (redistribution of income) and I know I haven't.
Randy,
I agree with your last post. That's why I want to restrict the money our con artists can play with before they turn into murderous tyrants.
Strange, you (brotio) and vidyohs complain about Guvmint and taxes with the same arguments and vigor of anarcho-Capitalist Libertarian types yet still can see some sort of minimal right for Guvmint and taxes to exist. As I asked before if you like the certain parts of Guvmint where your taxes come back to you in the forms of roads and street lighting then why not have private enterprise doing all this instead? Doesn't having Guvmint naturally mean you'll have to pay taxes for things you won't get in return but others will? The reason Guvmint doesn't involve itself in TVs is because everyone agrees that if people want a TV they can pay for one themselves. After all, isn't the main difference between private enterprise and Guvmint is that private enterprise is solely user-pays?
Gil,
You claim there is no difference between a tax to build a road (where anyone who wants to CAN use that road), and redistribution of income (where once Muirduck's (HT Vidyohs) politician buddies give you my money, then it's YOURS and no one else can use it, even me. I see a huge difference between the two, and (I believe I'm repeating myself from a different thread) since you can't see that difference we have an irreconcilable difference of opinion.
"I think that's a very debatable point. It's presumptuous on your part in light of the prevailing evidence. EVERY SINGLE other developed nation has a form of universal health coverage and every single one pays far less and has as good of outcomes as we do."
No, the problem is that you are dismissing the evidence – the same way people dismiss the 'what is not seen' type of argument. Long waiting queues are a NORM. Huge wasting is a NORM. Less equipment is a NORM. Rude doctors are NORM. Good quality hospital seems to be an exception. Ask the Canadians for waiting queues – dying of cancer because of lack of treatment is not unusual. Ask the Brits about quality and waiting times. The most striking evidence is success in the cancer treatment. No other nation is as successful as the USA.
What is not seen – the slackers are taking over!
Long waiting queues are a NORM. Huge wasting is a NORM. Less equipment is a NORM. Rude doctors are NORM. Good quality hospital seems to be an exception.
Posted by: andy
I'm not sure what your sources our. We have a German exchange student living with us. He says they have no problems. Every-time he wants to see the doctor he gets in same day no problem. At the foundations group meeting very intelligent kids from Sweden, Germany, Norway, France all report no problems when asked. They don't relay any hint of the things you are saying and neither does the objective clinical outcomes…and CERTAINLY the cost they pay is far less.