Sunday, July 10, 2011
Uncertainty Unhinged
Oh, I'm sorry, did I say rich? I meant "job creators." Yes. That's actually a prevailing theory on the right...that Obama's rhetoric towards Wall Street has been so hostile that is has created an uncertainty in the business community because he called them fatcats once and they're still suffering from some sort of jobs creating disorder...like he burst into the bathroom while they were trying to pee and now they can't go at all.
When did the business community become so sensitive that we have treat them like some rare and exotic animal? Don't startle them or they'll fly away! We need to sooth them so they can nest here and lay their magic eggs full of jobs.
And that's the end of all this uncertainty bullshit. Thanks again, Bill!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
50 comments:
Oh yeah - you can tell that Bill knows all about running a business. Just like you do Mark. Groan.
You never said a word about the article I linked written by someone who knows more about hiring people than Bill Mawhore, me or you. Lalalala - you won't listen to what you don't want to hear.
I find it interesting that despite all the protestations by people like you two above that you are not Republicans you are still using the same talking points that they are. Why is that? Mark has mentioned several times that he worked for a small business before he became a teacher so he does know a few things.
The whole "uncertainty" narrative is bogus when you pull it apart a little bit. Markets are always uncertain and operate that way with or without government intervention. The lobbying groups that are supporting business came up with this lie so people like Haplo9 and juris imprudent would fall for it and continue to support them in their continued efforts to be irresponsible.
There's a great deal of hilarity here, if you clowns could get a little perspective on yourselves here. On one side, we have business people, one who ran a large corporation, and also including one these very comment sections, giving you various reasons why they are conservative about hiring people right now. On the other side, you have a teacher who believes that because he thinks really hard about something, he has a better idea of how businesses are run than the actual people that run them, the teacher's sycophants, and an entertainer whos contribution to the debate is "those business people are poopieheads!" And yet, you want to be taken seriously. Good luck with that kids. :)
Give it some time, Mark, and the uncertainty narrative will fall away just like all of the other silliness we see from the GOP. They'll be on to something else before long and it will be just as ridiculous. As your student recently said, their only conviction these days is proving President Obama wrong.
I find it interesting that despite all the protestations by people like you two above that you are not Republicans you are still using the same talking points that they are.
Wow. I don't suck Democrat cock so I must be an evil Republican. Go hump your Obama doll baby-cakes.
Gotta love them nuanced, seeing the world as more than black-and-white, liberal/progressive minds.
Mark has mentioned several times that he worked for a small business before he became a teacher so he does know a few things.
For you, the one-eyed man is king. Thanks, ST, for illustrating why pure democracy is so bad - you are the kind of idiot that elects the Bachmanns and Kucinichs in this country.
Ah, I see, Haplo9, nice set up there to show the "winning" side. All small businesses and corporations are Republican. Yeah, that makes sense. Are you saying that someone who ran a large corporation posts on this blog? Who would that be? I find that to be very doubtful.
But I want you to write it. They are conservative about hiring now because ________. Let's dispense with the make believe that you aren't really a Republican and come out with what we all know to be true.
When the economy sucks as bad as it does right now sasquatch - is anyone "winning"?
I know, I know, if you can't be right - then fuck everyone else.
Stupid little children blame powers that are beyond them. It is stupid and childish to blame the President, and it is stupid and childish to blame evil CEOs. Take your pick. Someone is going to take your lunch and all you will do is cry about it.
It is nice to see the full yippee little dog posse out in force.
>All small businesses and corporations are Republican.
Funny, I don't recall saying that. Can you point to where I said anything like that?
Here's a little thought experiment for you kiddies out there. First, some points that I think are true, feel free to disagree with me if you think they are false:
a. Businesses like to make money. In fact, it's the primary reason they exist.
b. In order to make more money, said businesses usually need to invest, whether in buying equipment or hiring people.
c. Therefore, when business do not do the things in b., a reasonable guess as to the reason is that they don't think they will make money in doing so.
Agree/disagree? If not, why not? If so, then a simple question - why the whining? If businesses don't think they will make money either by hiring or investing, shouldn't they, er, not hire or invest? Should they lose money to make you guys feel better? To make bad policies look less bad? Wouldn't it then make a lot of sense to ask why they don't want to invest, instead of waiting to see what the authority Bill Maher has to say? You've had two answer from business owners so far. Are they lying?
Let me put it another way, since you seem to discount anything that doesn't fit your narrative:
Non-human business assets are not subject to Obamacare, whos costs are far from clear at this point. Given that uncertainty, what kind of idiot business owner would not at least consider that when thinking about hiring new people?
>As your student recently said, their only conviction these days is proving President Obama wrong.
See, comments like this are really funny. You know why? Because you are asserting that businesses in the United States want to "prove Obama wrong" more than they want to make money. In other words, they are willing to hurt themselves in order to hurt Obama. Utter nonsense. Try to come up with some reasoning that doesn't fall apart under the slightest scrutiny.
>Are you saying that someone who ran a large corporation posts on this blog? Who would that be?
No. Here's a synopsis kiddo: Juris linked to the founder of Home Depot explaining why he felt that uncertainty matters, and a commenter by the name of "Investor" commented as to why his business was very leery of hiring more people. Investor never claimed his business was large. My business is even smaller - two people, and yet we are keenly aware of possible costs to our business and how they are affected by the political environment. There is no way we'd hire people right now - Obamacare's effects are not known, and a lot of Democrats have made it clear they want to raise taxes on corporations and/or individuals. If you think that has no effect on our decision making process, do yourself a favor and never own a business. You wouldn't make it.
Hap, you start out great. Businesses are indeed making a lot of money now and are doing so without hiring. So why would they? It's important to note that profit are insanely high even with all this "uncertainty":)
But then you slide into your bias again and that's where things go kitty wompus. I know plenty of people in town that own small businesses. If you like, I can interview them here on this blog. One of them owns a small commercial window washing business and supports the health care bill and the president's economic policies. None of them are worried about the health care plan, uncertainty, or anything related to Democratic/progressive policies. Before you haul off, call them stupid and say that they know nothing about running a business, I'd ask you to consider that region of the country and local situations probably have more to do with it than federal issues.
For example, in MN, we have around 6 percent unemployment-3 points lower than the national average. We are doing OK economically but not great. Our state generally does well, though, even in bad times as we are the headquarters of some major companies here (General Mills, Carlson, 3M, Target, Best Buy). Perhaps your home state is doing so well. No need to tell me where you are from if you don't feel comfortable but I think that should at least be a consideration.
want to raise taxes on corporations and/or individuals
Cutting subsidies and loopholes are not raising taxes. True or false: subsidies distort markets. And letting tax cuts expire is not the same thing as raising taxes. The central problem here is that we live in an overly indulgent society and the people in it want to keep indulging themselves-even if it means fucking other people over and destroying the very framework that allows them to be overly indulgent.
So why would they? It's important to note that profit are insanely high even with all this "uncertainty":)
Is profit all that high? Outside of oil companies, can you cite record profits? I'd be inclined to discount financial services companies - since they were major beneficiaries of govt largesse. Perhaps you can point to a highly profitable American maker of cars?
We are doing OK economically but not great.
You are doing a shit-load better than California. Funny how the Dems here are starting to look pretty seriously at Wisconsin and New Jersey for how to fix the state finances.
You raise a very good point - one that you may not have intended to - the difference between local and national. Didn't someone once say that all politics are local? So too might be all [relevant] economics.
True or false: subsidies distort markets.
True.
And letting tax cuts expire is not the same thing as raising taxes.
Silly, you could also say that letting tax increases expire is not the same thing as cutting taxes.
Cutting subsidies and loopholes are not raising taxes.
There is no such thing as a loophole.
Hey, here's another crying need for more regulation. Thank you Rep. Markey!
Tax and regulatory uncertainty restraining business investment? Pshaaw, pronounce noted business and financial experts Bill Maher, unfunny comedian, and Mark A. Daffiya, tennis coach and study hall monitor.
Here's an area of business crying out for more taxes and regulation (but aren't they all?):
America’s system of rail freight is the world’s best.
>Businesses are indeed making a lot of money now and are doing so without hiring.
I'm not so sure that's true. I could be wrong, but I think businesses are saving a lot of money, not earning a lot - they aren't investing nearly as much as before, either in hiring or in capital investments. And so they have swelling bank accounts, but the revenue side of things isn't exactly wonderful. Do you have other data?
>But then you slide into your bias again and that's where things go kitty wompus.
Groan. And Mark suddenly has a lot of trouble remembering what his own post said. Let's review.
Mark: This whole uncertainty thing? It's bullshit. I said so, and so did Bill Maher.
Me: Actually, you don't know what you're talking about. It's quite reasonable for businesses to be worried about uncertainty. You've had a business owner on this very blog tell you why his company won't hire. The founder of home depot wrote an article explaining why its a problem.
Mark: Nope, I'm going to ignore what both of those people said.
Me: Furthermore, if you think about it, it's not hard to construct a rationale in your mind for why businesses might be worried about this sort of thing. Businesses want to make money. Regulations and the threat of new costs represent uncertain costs. Uncertain costs = less certainty about how good investments will do. Less certainty = more conservative about investment.
Mark: Nope, you're kitty wompus. Why, I actually know some business owners who aren't worried about uncertainty. So that means that all business owners aren't worried about uncertainty, no matter what they may have said.
Me: Uh huh. There you go again with your "the world is how I say it is!" nonsense.
For the record, Mark, no, I don't speak for all business owners, and no, not all of them will have the same concerns. The point is that your blithe dismissal of uncertainty as some kind of made up issue is just wishful thinking on your part. You might also try being a little less obvious about your intent here - you want to declare this notion of uncertainty invalid so that Obama can't logically take any of the blame for it. Good try, I guess.
>I know plenty of people in town that own small businesses. If you like, I can interview them here on this blog.
Actually, that would be a good idea. Much better than the know nothing bilge you spew regarding economic issues. Then we can compare rationales between businesses that are worried about uncertainty and the political climate and those that aren't. (Er, I guess in your world, there aren't any of the first kind, right?)
>Perhaps your home state is doing so well.
Home state is WA. It's doing ok. Speaking of which, hmm. Boeing has a big presence here. I really wonder if the recent NLRB decision regarding Boeing's attempt to get some work going in South Carolina will affect Boeing business decisions moving forward. Nah, Mark said it's no biggie. Boeing will just take it. Actually, I have a prediction - Boeing may contribute more to Republicans this election cycle in order to get a Republican president who can appoint a non authoritarian to the NLRB board. And Mark and co will take that as evidence of the evil corrupting power of corporate money in politics, conveniently forgetting that utterly garbage decision by the NLRB.
than the know nothing bilge you spew regarding economic issues.
The problem here is that once you hear where they stand ideologically it will be bilge from them as well. We'll see if the window washing dude wants to talk about his business.
The problem here is that once you hear where they stand ideologically it will be bilge from them as well.
Exactly. You don't even have to hear what they think, or find out why they think it. All you have to know is that it disagrees with you in order to declare it "bilge".
I, for one, would like to hear from your friends who own businesses as to why they feel now is a good time to hire. An important part of understanding their rationale will be appreciating what kind of business they own and short- and long-term prospects for that market. It also will be interesting to hear if any of the incentives pursued by the Obama administration are factoring in to the decision to hire.
Since previous comments made by me came up in this thread I will reiterate my belief that this is a poisonous environment for investing, including hiring and capital investment, and consequently my decision is to hunker down. Uncertainty cannot be dismissed with the wave of a hand, or the snark of a comedian who isn't the least bit impacted by the situation. The ABC's of the situation laid out by the commenter with the moniker Haplo9 quite nicely sums up my situation. If the chance of making money outweighed the risk that I face by investing right now then obviously I would do it. The risk of skyrocketing costs and punitive tax situations is simply too high. In reality, I can ask more from my current employees, reward them for their increased efforts, retain my current client base, not lose out on prospective clients, and a year or two down the road have much greater clarity about fallout from health insurance reform, ECI, euro debt, US debt default, etc. Also, part-time workers have already started playing a big role in getting through this time as well.
Heck, if I thought that the equation was in the vicinity of a push I would go ahead and hire new full-time employees because, long term, my hope would be to expand my client base. Since other companies are reluctant to hire right now this is a golden opportunity for doing that. But I see the immediate consequence of hiring experienced, full-time individuals as being devastating to my bottom line in the short term and potentially the end of my business long-term if things shake out poorly.
Also, to address a contention you made in a previous thread, whether or not one can characterize the expiration of a tax break as a "tax increase" is irrelevant to the person paying the increased amount of tax. That may be important in a classroom discussion but not to the debit side of my ledger. I understand that part of being a business owner is to give back, and by any reasonable assessment I am happy to do my part in aiding a recovery by hiring to the best of my ability. But I am not so keen on giving more to a government that seems so intent on wasting what I'm already giving them.
this is a poisonous environment for investing, including hiring and capital investment
I would tend to agree with this but the fault lies at the feet of the financial sector, not the Obama administration.
The risk of skyrocketing costs and punitive tax situations
Except that taxes are very low right now for both individual and corporate taxes. See my postI put up today. I don't see how you can define taxes this way given the simple facts but I do agree with you on costs. Again, not the fault of government.
a government that seems so intent on wasting what I'm already giving them
Well, that all depends on how you define waste. That's where the political process of priorities come in. Without social cohesion in our culture (the ultimate result of welfare capitalism), your business will surely suffer, right?
Without social cohesion in our culture (the ultimate result of welfare capitalism)
Jeez, you don't fool around when it comes to throwing out huge unwarranted, unprovable assumptions do you, Mark?
And what an oxymoron "Welfare Capitalism" is. Some sort of mixed bastard offspring of socialism and capitalism, is it? Perhaps even a Third Way threading the needle between the two, promoting the social cohesion of the nation? Where have we heard that before?
That's where the political process of priorities come in.
So, amongst 100 politically engaged people - 51 will impose their priorities on the other 49 (not to mention the 200 to 300 politically apathetic).
Without social cohesion in our culture (the ultimate result of welfare capitalism), your business will surely suffer, right?
Like say white social cohesion in creating and sustaining Jim Crow? My brother spent years in union ranks and had to put up with the racist crackers that ran them. You on the other hand, do you only buy bread from white bakers? With wheat grown only by white farmers? I seriously doubt that you know; so what social cohesion is it that you are trumpeting?
>the fault lies at the feet of the financial sector, not the Obama administration.
This seems like classic Mark wish-think. Telling Boeing that they can't create jobs in S.C.? Poisonous. Favoring unions over bondholders in taking over GM? Poisonous. Explicitly wanting to raise taxes? Poisonous. A moratorium on permits for oil drilling in the Gulf? Poisonous.
>Without social cohesion in our culture (the ultimate result of welfare capitalism),
Any evidence for this claim? Intuition says it would be the reverse - the more people on welfare, the less social cohesion. Societies do worse, not better, when larger percentages of the people in a society are living off the productivity of other members of society.
>You don't even have to hear what they think, or find out why they think it.
Come now children, I know reading comprehension isn't your strong point, but really. At least try. Here is my exact quote:
"Much better than the know nothing bilge you spew regarding economic issues."
Operative word: "you." As in "Mark." Yes, Mark regularly outputs pure garbage as related to economics, because the world doesn't operate how he really really wished it did. When and if another person outputs similar garbage, I will call it such, but not before.
I learned on this blog that every problem has a point of origin...and a couple years ago, there was no way it could have been congress. Now its everyone EXCEPT the president.
I guess I am not understanding your point, Markadelphia. The original post seemed to be about the existence of "uncertainty" in the business community. Or, more specifically, a contention that there is no uncertainty. Yet you agree that it's a poisonous investment environment with skyrocketing costs and the spectre of increased tax payments (inferred from your contention that taxes are actually quite low). Isn't that contradictory?
Let's stipulate for a moment that the government truly isn't a cause of the current uncertain investment environment. Rather than arguing the validity of that point, perhaps the more relevant question is whether or not the government is a solution to the uncertain investment environment. One might infer from your response that increased tax payments -- carefully phrased to avoid calling it a tax increase -- is something that may be necessary due to the very low taxes currently being paid. Is it not an accurate statement that increased tax payments immediately detract from my bottom line? Is it not further correct to state that such detractions limit my ability to invest money in other ways? Is it also not true that ROI on the increased tax payments would only be realized if the increased payments were used to spark a recovery of the economy as a whole, which in turn would increase return on my other investments?
I guess I haven't seen anything from this administration, or the previous administration, that makes me believe the government is the best vehicle by which I can expect to realize a gain on my investment. The smarter play is for me to invest my money in ways that more directly contribute to the bottom line. But, as noted, the government is one of several factors that make me leery of doing even that.
Run threadkill
[rem] unanswerable with database .000001
Run update
Hey Unix, how's it going? Man enough yet to admit that you are oddly obsessed with Mark?
(Reuters) - Confidence among U.S. business owners slipped last month amid expectations of weak sales and a deterioration in business conditions over the next six months, a survey showed on Tuesday.
Is the opposite of confident, uncertain?
Even Reuters is now a bunch of cock sucking lying republican water carriers. There is no uncertainty... Mark said so.
Investor-I only question the existence of uncertainty as defined by the right which is essentially that it's all Obama's fault as well as the Democrats. Thankfully, the American people are smarter than that. By a 2 to 1 margin, they blame Bush and not Obama for these problems. I actually disagree and think they should blame the private sector as a whole-specifically the financial sector-first and then Bush and the Republicans.
To begin with, there's always uncertainty in the market but we certainly are in sluggish times. The reasons for this are numerous but the key ones revolve around the decided lack of responsible behavior on the part of the financial sector. Just because they are wealthy, doesn't mean they are smart or "good." The private sector as a whole whines about taxes but they aren't really paying that much in effective taxes as we have been discussing in another thread.
Costs continue to go up for smaller businesses and individuals yet none of the blame falls on the people that are charging them more money. It's always the fault of the government. This makes no sense to me. The government is trying to regulate better to contain these costs (health care, for example) so that markets are more efficient. It's not working out because of the perception that government always does more harm than good. That's simply not true.
I can't change your perception about government but I would urge you to examine the root causes of these problems. Sure, there are things that the government is doing wrong but they aren't the nexus of the problem.
So blame for the uncertainty in the market is an all or nothing thing for you? It starts and ends with the private sector, and the government bears no responsibility for it?
And, by the way, what perception of government do I have? You know...the perception that you "can't change"? The only opinion of the government I have expressed that differs from your opinion (since you agree they are doing things wrong) is the doubt that they are the best means of garnering a return on my investment. So your contention is that giving the government more money is the best way to grow a business? And my lack of understanding of that fact is due to my not having investigated the issue as deeply as you have?
What a curious contention.
It's not working out because of the perception that government always does more harm than good. That's simply not true.
All right then, let's clarify it.
1. Any costs associated with government are borne by the private sector, on every level from the individual citizen on up. There's no place else for the money to come from, as government produces no specific products for sale, and services tend to be a monopoly, not subject to competition factors.
2. Government does give a lot of that money back in various ways. However, no human organization, public or private, exists without administrative costs, so even at maximum possible efficiency the money put back will be less than the money taken out.
3. Therefore, in order to do "more good than harm", the beneficial effects of a government program of any type, the "improvement in efficiency" by having the government do _____ instead of the private sector, has to exceed the program's admin costs before it ceases to become a net loss. Yes, the private sector has admin costs, too. But the money to pay them remains active in the economy, there is no organization with monopoly authority and lethal force authority as the government has that gets to decide where it goes and when.
Think about that for a minute and maybe you'll see why people perceive governments as the legendary graveyard where old economic ideas go to die. The White House is always prepared for the last economic fad in the same way the generals are always prepared for the last war, for much the same reasons.
So blame for the uncertainty in the market is an all or nothing thing for you?
No, not at all. I'm actually saying that there is always a degree of uncertainty in the market as many participants in it seem very prone to hysteria. This is an overall comment and not aimed at anyone specifically but it often reminds me junior high school girls in all honesty. It's irrational and that's why people to tend to falsely blame the usual whipping boys...in this case the president and the Democrats...in a similar fashion to an outburst from a 14 year old girl. This same "girl" will then make a mistake (as teenagers often do) and then come begging to daddy (the government) for help. Irrational and hysterical...
So your contention is that giving the government more money is the best way to grow a business?
Not exactly. When markets are inefficient at distributing resources (and our current case, the participants were woefully inefficient), that's when government can step in to mitigate problems. Honestly, had Glass Steagall not been repealed in 1999, the tighter regulations would have prevented all of this from happening to such a great degree.
You keep throwing out this 'inefficient at distributing resources' canard like it's some sort of given. Yet you haven't backed that statement up with any sort argument.
I've mentioned it several times, GD, and offered examples...health care being one of them. You must not have been paying attention.
Health care you say? A while back I read something about how healthcare costs resemble a large U over population. We spend a great deal, per capita, on neo-natal and geriatrics. Costs for people in between are the low point of the U.
Is that what you mean by an inefficient allocation of resources? How would govt change that - except of course by limiting care at the upper points of the U.
>When markets are inefficient at distributing resources
Translation: when Mark sees outcomes he doesn't like, he wants the government to step in and try to change it to outcomes he likes. No reason to act like it's more than that Mark.
"there is always a degree of uncertainty... "
Christ, now I'm confused. Didn't you just say a few days ago that there isn't any uncertainty?
Yes mark, you have mentioned it several times in passing. I have been paying attention. But a mention in passing does not an intelligent argument make. Perhaps you can expound upon these passing comments to actually explain why you think the free market does not allocate health careefficiently.
when Mark sees outcomes he doesn't like, he wants the government to step in and try to change it to outcomes he likes.
No. When the market does not distribute resources efficiently, the government can sometimes affect market outcomes positively. That's the crux of welfare capitalism. If markets are distributing resources effectively (even if some people lose out), the government should probably not step in.
Didn't you just say a few days ago that there isn't any uncertainty?
No. As I wrote above, I don't think that uncertainty exists as defined by the right...just like I don't believe in Republican Jesus.
GD-I have gone over this many times. Do you recall my statements on inelastic demand? I'd also add that the problem with health care is that we have price makers and an oligopoly rather than a competitive market, generally speaking. The suppliers of health care can charge any price and the demand will stay mostly the same. Recall that with an oligopoly, the sellers cooperate and act like a monopoly and charge a price above marginal cost.
Mark, you post buzz words and catch phrases and call it a conclusion.
Truth is, if I were to ask you what two plus two equals I couldn't trust your answer without you showing your work - because the way you and I think and define terms are so different.
Thus, when you sprout complex ideas such as inelastic demand, price makers, oligopoly, competitive market and even marginal cost I can't trust that how I (or anyone else for that matter) define these terms is similar to how you define these terms.
Further, all you have gone over 'many times' is this same quick spouting of buzz words and catch phrases that say nothing because you never have once laid out a complete argument with a premise, evidence supporting said premise and a logical set of steps taking said supporting evidence and leading into a conclusion.
That's what I'm asking for here Mark. Because there just isn't enough meat to your statement about markets inefficiently allocating resources for me to rebut. It is so far an empty argument and I'd like you to either flesh it out or flush it away.
So, elasticity, oligopolies, demand, price makers, marginal cost, and competitive markets are buzz words and catch phrases? I sure hope that's not what you think. Actually, I'm wondering at this point if you even understand what I am talking about. These are basic principles of Microeconomics.
If you do understand, then don't expect me to publish a multiple page completed study on the health care market. These are simply a few specific observations based on some fundamental concepts. I am going to put up a post at some point soon with some more detail, however.
That would be nice Mark, because while we both agree they are basic principles we take those same basic ideas and come up with wildly differing conclusions. So either our basic building blocks are not the same or our formulas are different. Either way, as my math teachers used to insist, you need to show your work.
And yeah, if you just throw out terms without supporting data you are using them as buzz words. No different than an uninspiring manager who just got back from a weekend leadership conference.
Yeah, I've been around the block with you TSM folks plenty of times to know that no amount of "showing my work" will change your mind. Besides, there isn't much work to show. Demand for health care is largely ineleastic. This is a fact. The suppliers of health care a price makers and are largely an oligopoly. Generally speaking, it's not a competitive market as defined by basic economics. If the price goes up, very few (if any) leave the market. This is because we are talking about someone's health and possibly life.
However, at some point, I am going to put up post with some more detail. You will likely dismiss all of the facts that are contained therein and stomp your virtual feet and say that I'm not doing it right (aka I don't like your facts and they don't fit with my ideology). Oh well...
Hmmm, a while back either juris or hap disagreed with your statement that health care was an inelastic market, and now you have changed from inelastic to largely inelastic. So have the facts changed or are my efforts to get you back up your statements bearing fruit?
None the less I think that your post on this will be welcome. But as an example of why I want you to back up your statements, and before you write your great tome on health care, perhaps you should bear in mind that you seem to be considering the people actually receiving health care to be the customers of the health care market. Before educating us poor backwards rubes about competitive markets perhaps you should verify who are the actual customers in the market - starting with who is the largest single customer.
Mark-it's very clear that Guard Duck has barely a clue as to what you are talking about. He's just playing that usual game. Markets aren't inelastic. Demand or supply is where elasticity comes into play.
Well, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. That doesn't mean, however, that I'm going to dance like a monkey in front of an intractable ideology.
M sez When the market does not distribute resources efficiently, the government can sometimes affect market outcomes positively.
And I previously asked "Is that what you mean by an inefficient allocation of resources? How would govt change that - except of course by limiting care at the upper points of the [cost curve over population]."
If not health care, why don't you give another example of where the govt could better distribute resources than the market. You make this statement, yet you don't give even one example of where govt has done this (yet you infer it is the case with health care).
Post a Comment