What is interesting is that having the lawyer do everything, and then support the secretary, makes the sum of their incomes (“the economy”) larger still. Of course, left to his own devices, the lawyer wouldn’t do that, because he would be personally worse off than if he just fended for himself and fired the secretary. What is interesting is that you never hear socialists making that point–the point that collective wealth could theoretically maximized, according to comparative advantage, if you have the least productive people enslave the most productive people.

Instead socialists routinely criticize comparative advantage on faulty grounds. I guess it is because most socialists just aren’t intelligent enough to understand the concept.

Your example works only if the captain is capable of monetizing almost every hour in their day. If not, it then depends upon their ability to monetize almost every hour in the gofers day. The captain may be worth $200 an hour — and the gofer only $25. If the gofer requires eight hours a day — or the equivalent of an hour of the captains time — then it only makes sense if the gofer is utilized over an hour a day AND the captain can monetize every hour. This is one of the reasons that almost all captains run about a half-of-a-man short. They may be worth a lot — but they can’t sell every hour — they’re not worth a lot all of the time.

In a large enterprise, all of these assumptions change.

Something like, “A lawyer might type twice as fast as his secretary, but do legal work five times better than the secretary. Both are better off if the lawyer does the legal work and the secretary does the typing.”

An even better example of comparative advantage is:

the entire division of labor in general.

There is a division of labor for a number of reasons but one of the primary reasons is that most people don’t do everything well, or do everything more efficiently than anyone else does, so there are gains to be made by specializing their trade or skill and concentrating on one task and then paying for the goods and services they didn’t produce themselves from other, similarly specialized people.

The principles of free trade are the same whether you’re discussing two neighbors or two foreigners. State borders are arbitrary and distances are, logically speaking, negligible. If free trade is harmful between producers in China and producers in the US, free trade is harmful between producers on Mayberry St. and producers on Mulberry St. one block away.

Free yourselves of the illusions of the State and suddenly economics becomes universal and sensible.

I’m talking about the principle that you can’t talk about anything reasonable without someone countering by talking about a nationalized industry that nobody is proposing or considering.

This is an attempt to smuggle in two premises: 1) the premise that any plan that proposes anything less than total nationalization is “reasonable” and therefore may be considered, and: 2) the premise that if Obama denies that what he is doing is “nationalization”, then what he is doing is not nationalization, regardless of the specifics of the 1000+ page bill being debated in the House and regardless of the actual likely consequences of the proposed legislation.

Both premises are false.

Partial enslavement is not made “reasonable” by the fact that it is less onerous than total enslavement. The fact is, there is nothing whatsoever “reasonable” about the use of physical force to extract earnings from one man for purposes of providing unearned benefits to another — in reason, nothing justifies it. No amount of need on the part of one man endows him with a right to another man’s earnings.

Nor does Obama’s repeated claim that he is only trying to “foster competition and choice” make it so. The man is a bald-faced liar. Go here for a list of the 7 major lies in his latest healthcare speech:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/09/14/obamas_dissolving_credibility_98294.html

Obama is a typical power-lusting, statist looter with a single talent: the ability to pitch socialism as if the events of the 20th century never took place — as if socialism in all its forms did not starve millions to death in countries that practiced it consistently and impoverished millions more in countries that practiced it partially. It is his singular ability to lie with a straight face — to tell that whopper while looking and sounding completely sincere — that has made him the darling of all those parasites on the left who wish to exist without effort.

I didn’t say that it did – I was addressing the word ‘reasonable’, assuming it was in reference to the public insurer plan.

I’m no stranger to these costs and pitfalls. I say repeatedly on here that I’m leery of a public option – but think it’s worth a consideration. And if you’ll look back to the Whole Foods post you’ll note I greeted those enthusiastically too. The problem is you can’t even talk about a public option on here without someone trying to force you to defend a nationalized system. I shouldn’t have even mentioned the premiums – even if it is in the red an subsidized, that’s still completely different from a national system (ie – the system that you were discussing when you said “turns into a mandate to nationalize 1/6 of the economy”).

Holding a principled stance against any government intrusion into the market is a completely valid point to argue. What is not valid is a distortion of the opposition who never wanted nationalization anyway.

I understand your point, but a lot of people here would consider even a premium-funded public insurer unreasonable. The historical reality is that such user-pay systems can be in the red after time and require bailing out, can have their scope increased to resemble a nationalised system, can lead to other market restrictions (such as fast food taxes and the like), and can place unfair burden on other market participants. Not to mention that there are much simpler methods that could be tried to increase competition and reduce costs such as those mentioned by that Whole Foods guy (and by free-market economists like Professor Boudreaux.) Holding a principled stance against any government intrusion into the market is consistent with economic reality and validated by history.

I was thinking more in terms of the endogenous atrophying of productive technology, which Prestowitz seemed to be alluding to (badly, granted).

But I didn’t mention any specific plan. I’m not talking about an expansion of subsidized plans, like Medicaid. I’m talking about the principle that you can’t talk about anything reasonable without someone countering by talking about a nationalized industry that nobody is proposing or considering.

Sorta like raising feminism issues when the simple fact is Don can walk faster than his secretary.