National Labour

[bigdude]

Platform sounds good to me.

[Hugo]

Which government held hoops would you like to do away with? The regulations in most jurisdictions in Canada are already very minimal - pass a criminal records check, get some basic first aid training, have a fire exit and some floor space for the children to play, and you are in business.

And that last part is the problem. Running a business in Canada is very complicated and can be overwhelming for the sole or lone businessperson - which daycares tend to be. Tax law alone is convoluted enough that you need to hire an accountant if you don't want to flirt with a tax evasion charge, which is a big overhead for a small business. Then there are required liability insurances and so forth, and heaven help you if you want to hire somebody under you - figure out their taxes, CPP, EI, comply with all the labour laws, etc.

It's no picnic. And now the government will attempt to drive private daycare out of the market altogether, and the tax rates will start to climb since every government enterprise needs more cash each year to run, not less, and these days most of the taxes are borne by the poor.

[Guest eureka]

I think it is bedtime, Hugo. I find myself almost agreeing with you so I must be tired.

[August1991]

Running a business in Canada is very complicated and can be overwhelming for the sole or lone businessperson - which daycares tend to be. Tax law alone is convoluted enough that you need to hire an accountant if you don't want to flirt with a tax evasion charge, which is a big overhead for a small business. Then there are required liability insurances and so forth, and heaven help you if you want to hire somebody under you - figure out their taxes, CPP, EI, comply with all the labour laws, etc.

Hugo, you have really hit the main point. Government does not take a "large" share of the economy. At present, it is around 25% of GDP, up from about 15% in the 1920s. (Of course, transfers between individuals are much larger.)

But where the real problem lies is in the myriad licences, regulations, tax compliance forms, tax incentives and so on. I am convinced that much of our black market exists less to avoid taxes than to avoid the hassle factor.

As Steyn said this week, bureaucrats want us to complete the UR1-2 form.

I think it is bedtime, Hugo. I find myself almost agreeing with you so I must be tired.

OMG!

[The Terrible Sweal]

...But where the real problem lies is in the myriad licences, regulations, tax compliance forms, tax incentives and so on.  I am convinced that much of our black market exists less to avoid taxes than to avoid the hassle factor.

As Steyn said this week, bureaucrats want us to complete the UR1-2 form.

Exessive or ill conceived regulation can be an awful drag on the economy. However, there is a 'noise' problem in the pubic discourse on this topic, basically in the form of a credibility problem on the part of regulation-cutters.

[Hugo]

I find myself almost agreeing with you so I must be tired.

Is it? Or is it that you're more awake than you've ever been?

Government does not take a "large" share of the economy. At present, it is around 25% of GDP, up from about 15% in the 1920s.

It's funny that the government take of GDP in the USA is around 30-35%, whereas in so-called Communist China, only around 20%. The Chinese actually run a freer-market economy than we do, since they don't have much in the way of a welfare state and a far larger slice of their government spending is on the military (and thus divorced from social spending). It strikes me as amusing that North Americans see themselves as capitalists and the Chinese as communists, when in reality, it's the other way around. Just an observation.

I am convinced that much of our black market exists less to avoid taxes than to avoid the hassle factor.

Definitely. In some trades and some areas, it is practically the default mode of trade. My mother lives in rural Wales, and the official economic indicators are that her region is very poor. However, this picture is not accurate, because the Welsh generally see it as their moral duty to defy the English government and a very large proportion of the trade where she lives is black-market, undocumented and tax-free.

However, there is a 'noise' problem in the pubic discourse on this topic, basically in the form of a credibility problem on the part of regulation-cutters.

I think the credibility problem lies with the regulators. The empirical evidence suggests that the free market regulates itself far better anyway. For instance, car manufacturers go above and beyond government safety mandates on practically every model sold these days, and the corruption of Enron was discovered by market-based action, not government, and the 'punishment' of Enron (i.e. its financial collapse) came about through the market too, before government had even thought about taking action.

Regulation creates a vast opportunity for government corruption and bribery. Red tape and illegal activity can be overlooked for a price. In effect, what regulation does is to favour the rich and the powerful (who are well-connected and can afford to bribe) and the state, driving the smaller competitor out of business and harming the consumer with higher prices. Take prohibition as an example. People still bought liquor, but it was far more expensive. The cops who would take bribes got rich, and gangsters like Al Capone got rich, the smaller liquour vendor went out of business, and the consumer got fleeced. I'm sure I don't need to mention the Canadian government, rocked by scandal after scandal, and stories come in from every province and every party of how officials have favoured their friends in business. Certainly it is no secret that the US Government favours certain businesses and industries, and will cut red tape for its friends while stringing new tape for the others.

[kimmy]

lol I'm a history and Political Science major in University, so I know what I am talking about.

I'd assume a Political Science major would would be smarter than to include the word "Front" in the name of his political party. Canadians will never support a party that calls itself a "Front", which sounds only slightly less confrontational than "Brigade" or "Army". Never. Not even if it was "The National Mothers and Hugs Front."

-k

{best action group name ever: the "Militant Islamic Liberation Front" (MILF for short...)}

[Winterhaze13]

lol I'm a history and Political Science major in University, so I know what I am talking about.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'd assume a Political Science major would would be smarter than to include the word "Front" in the name of his political party. Canadians will never support a party that calls itself a "Front", which sounds only slightly less confrontational than "Brigade" or "Army". Never. Not even if it was "The National Mothers and Hugs Front."

-k

{best action group name ever: the "Militant Islamic Liberation Front" (MILF for short...)}

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You mean you wouldn't vote for the Liberals if they changed their name to Liberal Front? People don't pay attention to those type of things.

[kimmy]

You mean you wouldn't vote for the Liberals if they changed their name to Liberal Front? People don't pay attention to those type of things.

I probably wouldn't even vote for the Liberals if they changed their name to the Kimmy Party of Canada, but that's beside the point.

Putting the word "Front" in your party's name is a surefire, guaranteed, can't-miss way to make yourself look "fringe" and "wacko". You can think I'm kidding or mistaken if you wish, but I'm not.

-k

[PatM]

- First point (from a different thread but still germain) "Minimum wage causes unemployment" is a neo-liberal half-truth.

Having a minimum wage does not cause unemployment just because it exists. If we had a minimum wage of 1 cent per day, would that cause unemployment? No? Well then, this statement is incomplete.

The actual statement should be "a minimum wage that is too high causes unemployment". Neo-cons (crapitalists) love to spew the former and conveniently forget the latter.

The truth is, if we didn't have NAIRU keeping unemployment at DOUBLE what it should be, we wouldn't NEED a minimum wage law. Wages would settle in at a market determined level which, I dare say, would likely result in a higher "lowest" wage than our present "minimum wage".

NAIRU gives employers a significant advantage wage wise. When there's TWO people for every job opening, wages are depressed - just like two people wanting to purchase only one item bid up the price, two people trying for the same job bid the wage down. Removing minimum wage without allowing unemployment to reach its natural 3-4% range simply pushes wages far too low - creating unemployment and poverty at the lower end and richer employers at the other.

Second, I keep see variations of the neo-con mantra "Government is always bloated and inefficient, private business is always better". This is utter hogwash!

This myth gained most of its support in the days when CEOs were making Man of the Year in Time magazine. They were the miracle workers - able to make gargantuan profits with very little capital etc. Well, today many of those CEOs are in prison or facing prosecution for fraud. The vaunted private sector efficiency has been exposed for what it is - a fraud.

The real difference between public and private delivery of services is the amount of service delivered. One only has to look at US healthcare to see what I mean.

US Hospitals don't have to treat poor people, they are told to toddle off and die. Only rich people get good treatment, people with HMO coverage may or may not get the treatments they need - it depends on the mood of the accountant that adjudicates the medical necessity of the case. Every person treated in US hospitals pays enough to get the hospital a net profit.

There are "Charity" and "Public" hospitals in addition to the private ones. The Charity hospitals inexplicably have bankrupted a large portion of the "Charity" patients lately.

In Canada we aren't allowed to turn someone away due to lack of coverage. Someone earning a subsistance wage can get more treatment than they'd ever be able to afford if they had to pay out of pocket. Thus there is no profit from such people, there is a loss. The question is - which is more important to society - profit or life?

The big suprise is, comparing the "oh so efficient" American system to the Canadian "inefficient" public system, American's pay MORE per capita for healthcare than Canadians, yet receive far less!

When it comes to heath care, water, and power, private business has shown its true colours. We cannot trust them to do anything other than get the most profit possible, even if they have to break the law to get it.

Energy is another example. Here in BC we've had public power since Wacky Bennet. Our cost for power has always been quite low and yet BC Hydro (all unionized) has always made good profits (which went to fund government).

Proposals were made to privatize BC Hydro. In the best case, our energy costs needed to QUADRUPLE and at the same time we'd lose a HUGE amount of income - the energy profits. All we'd get are taxes on the private company. Just WHERE is the economic sense in that? Pay (ultimately) six times as much just so some CEO and Board of directors can get rich?

Certain things are simply too important to leave to a pure profit motive. Health, Water, and Energy NEED to be under government control.

As for that new party idea, your economics are all wrong. What is needed is to FIX our fractional reserve system and get money creation in check. Hugo is exactly wrong when he says government creates inflation by printing too much money. Our government only creates about 5% of new money each year - the rest if created by PRIVATE banks.

Milton Friedman himself said that Monetarism was a bust. He urged governments to go to a 100% reserve - he saw the mistake in letting PRIVATE business handle almost all money creation. Instead, Mulroney went to a 0% reserve, letting banks make (literally) as much money as they want.

Once the fractional reserve is repaired, restore the four pillars of finance.

Next change the Bank of Canada mandate to match that of Austria's "Magic Pentagon". Its current method of fighting inflation by keeping people unemployed is monsterous AND it strangles growth. Our GDP isn't allowed to grow by more than 3% for fear of inflation, even though we regularly hit 5% regularly with hardly any inflation between WWII and 1974. The key is those damned private banks creating way too much money for our economy to handle.

You'll have to make sure everyone in the country realizes you are about to curtail credit and that inflation is going to drop. Stagflation in the early 80s was a result of business raising prices and unions raising wages in the absence of high inflation. It wasn't from greed - we'd had high inflation for years and they had no reason to believe it wouldn't continue.

Raise the reserve requirements incrementally, not all at once. As the new money supply from private banks shrinks you have to make sure you create enough money to keep the money supply growing at roughly the same rate as GDP and also satisfy foreign demand for our currency. Too little and you get deflation, too much and you get inflation. While I'd love to go to 100% reserve, 25% should be quite high enough to get the money supply under control.

As the reserve builds in the Bank of Canada, do what the bank of Canada was supposed to be doing all this time. As government debts mature, have the Bank of Canada buy them out instead of rolling them over to yet another credit-card interest level loan. We pay over 65 billion a year just in INTEREST on the debt (16-22%!) instead of borrowing from the Bank of Canada at 1% NON compounded!

be careful here though. Once unemployment is allowed to drop, the low end wages will start rising - causing wage-push pressures on prices. You'll have to grin and bear it, let the market settle itself out.

Next, abrogate every "trade" treaty except GATT. GATT was actually about trade of goods - FTA/NAFTA was about moving vasts amounts of money as fast as possible. This was to benefit currency speculators more than anything. Currency speculators are a blight on the world economy.

As an example - We require 88 billion dollars in Canada to carry out normal everyday business. The currency speculators move many TRILLIONS of dollars around. Every movement affecting the value of currencies around the world.

What we need is a tax on these currency transactions. Half a percent would be plenty to stop speculators and encourage investors (they are not the same thing). The revenue from even a 0.25% tax would be enough to pay for all our social spending with plenty left over.

By this time the government will be flush with cash and you can start paying off foreign debt faster.

You can probably consider eliminating the GST by this point. It was created to make up for the lost revenue we used to get when government was making 25%-50% of all new money the country required each year.

Thats a good start for ya. "Purist" capitalists will insist on going to commodity based money (silver and gold coin etc) but thats simply not doable in the short term. The concept just too foreign for most people to contemplate (though I'd LOVE to see it done).

[Hugo]

Having a minimum wage does not cause unemployment just because it exists. If we had a minimum wage of 1 cent per day, would that cause unemployment? No? Well then, this statement is incomplete.

A minimum wage of 1 cent per day would not actually be any kind of minimum wage, because it would set a "minimum" below the lowest market clearing price for labour. The term "minimum wage" means, economically, a wage set by fiat above the market clearing price.

his myth gained most of its support in the days when CEOs were making Man of the Year in Time magazine. They were the miracle workers - able to make gargantuan profits with very little capital etc. Well, today many of those CEOs are in prison or facing prosecution for fraud.

For what - antitrust? Statist nonsense. Insider trading? Statist nonsense. Some may have genuinely committed crimes, but Bill Gates is innocent, and Martha Stewart is innocent.

The real difference between public and private delivery of services is the amount of service delivered. One only has to look at US healthcare to see what I mean.

The US has state-run healthcare. They just run it a different way. Canada has a directly state-run industry, the US government has outsourced healthcare to a cartel that they protect (the AMA). Same thing in effect.

US Hospitals don't have to treat poor people, they are told to toddle off and die.

Actually, US doctors are prevented from knowing the financial status of their patients. Only hospital administrators have that information.

In Canada we aren't allowed to turn someone away due to lack of coverage. Someone earning a subsistance wage can get more treatment than they'd ever be able to afford if they had to pay out of pocket. Thus there is no profit from such people, there is a loss. The question is - which is more important to society - profit or life?

You can have both. Ask which is more important, owning TVs or profit? TV manufacturers have made good profits, and TV ownership is now above 99%.

When it comes to heath care, water, and power, private business has shown its true colours. We cannot trust them to do anything other than get the most profit possible, even if they have to break the law to get it.

Do you know that the government awards monopolies to companies in these fields? Of course they won't do anything but bleed their customers dry: the government has removed the most important incentive not to do so, the threat of competition!

Certain things are simply too important to leave to a pure profit motive. Health, Water, and Energy NEED to be under government control.

Food is more important than any of those. Are you proposing that we nationalise the food industry? What about the telephone industry? That's quite important. Should the state provide all housing? Shelter is a primary human need.

Hugo is exactly wrong when he says government creates inflation by printing too much money. Our government only creates about 5% of new money each year - the rest if created by PRIVATE banks.

Which are granted the power to create money by the government, and the government then proceeds to borrow most of the money thus created - deficit spending.

I don't know how much you know about Austrian capitalism, but I find it strange that you laud it and then make so many statements that completely contradict Austrian doctrine.

[geoffrey]

1. Nationalize key industries such as oil and gas and use the revenue to fund social programs, as well as education and healthcare.

What other social programs do you want? More HRDC? More Gun registries? More Sponsorship? We already have enough in Canada as is, lets not have more interference in our lives.

Oil and gas make up a huge portion of Alberta's revenue, and I see this as a direct attack on Alberta specifically. Lets rob the rich to feed the unmotivated and poorly managed. Other provinces have resources too, and yet just don't market and develop them to the massive extent Alberta (and Ontario) do. So while we are at it, lets nationalise crab fisheries, forestry, shipping, Quebec power generation, all agriculture, ect. ect.. Oil and gas belongs no more in the pockets of the government than any other industry.

Governments can't run businesses, they are too cumbersome and racked with inefficencies. You want jobs created without a debt, lower taxes and interference, not increase both.

2. Nationalize healthcare and education to make it available to all walks of life, rich or poor. The education system should be entirely free from kindergarten to undergrad in universities. However, students are required to pay for books and residence if they require it. All schools should maintain the same standards and curriculum. Introduce standardized teaching manuals.

Healthcare and education are available to everyone. There are some of us that actually have the capacity to work and pay for our university while going, and those that are too lazy to do so, obviously aren't worthy of such an education. I know scores of people that work their *** off to pay for school, and others that sit down and whine that it costs too much. Guess who the more sucessful people are?

3. Introduce a redistribution tax on major corporations that will be allocated to small business and the disadvantaged in society.

Major corporations are a huge employer and source of foreign investment in Canada. Without foreign capital our economy cannot function. Basic economic theory.

4. The state should introduce legislation that will increase the number of worker's unions in the private sector.

Why? If the workers don't like the conditions, go elsewhere. They are all protected by minimum standards under law. Seriously, its supply and demand, you don't like your job you move on somewhere else. Or improve your skills or education, you don't form more unions that actually DECREASE employed through higher wages and decreased profitability. Companies can only afford to pay so many people at inflated wages.

5. The state should be more involved in the economy by creating public sector jobs. The government can control inflation by cutting spending on social programs. If there is too much unemployment, the state should create jobs in the public sector.

More people to run the gun registry. No I don't buy that argument. I don't see why my hard earned money should go to someone that can't find or create work on their own. I have, so can they. Enough of my money does already. Lets not make it more.

6. The senate should consist of ordinary people in society that meets a certain criteria. It will be made up of people with a political science or economics degree, doctors, lawyers, native leaders, bureaucrats, union leaders, etc. They will be chosen through a lottery to serve either a 2 or 6 year term.

What about scientists? And all those workers that you were fighting for earlier. For someone that wants to destroy an eliteist society, you sure are creating one.

7. Eliminate taxes on family essentials such as baby food, diapers, and clothing. Increase the tax credit per child.

No GST on them already, been there done that.

8. Revamp the tax system so that single-income households, low-income families, the elderly and other disadvantaged members of society pay almost no income tax. Raise taxes for wealthy households.

Why should I pay more for the same services? Unfair in my opinion. I already support more than my share.

9. See to it that major corporations become more accountable and responsible.

Nothing wrong with that idea.

10. Introduce an inheritance tax on estates worth $1 million or more. The tax will increase as the value of the estate rises.

Why should the government take the hard earned money from families. Destroying the upper class? Campaigns against those that lead are rarely sucessful and are always spawned out of jealousy.

11. More tax credits for families using the day-care system.

And more tax-credits for moms and dads that decide to stay home and raise their children too.

12. Increase immigration to one percent of the population annually.

And when we fall short? Start advertising open borders? It's ok as long as we are only bringing in educated people with fluency in English or French. No free loaders or future welfare receipiants please.

13. Introduce additional taxes for home owners with property worth $1 million or more.

Why why why? Those that are sucessful and employ our workers and drive our economy! LETS PUNISH THEM!.... won't fly with me.

14. Eliminate NAFTA and implement the Kyoto protocol.

Eliminate NAFTA? I don't know about you, but I like the idea of being able to buy my products at great prices and export throughout North America without tariffs.

15. Ban corporate donations to political parties.

Sure, I can agree with this. As long as unions, labour groups, lobby groups and every other group is banned too. Your party and the NDP would be bankrupt in a hurry.

16. Increase foreign aid to 0.7% of GDP.

I think it would be hard to find anyone to argue with that. It should go to NGO's though, not some blank cheque to the UN.

[Technocrat]

2. Nationalize healthcare and education to make it available to all walks of life, rich or poor. The education system should be entirely free from kindergarten to undergrad in universities. However, students are required to pay for books and residence if they require it. All schools should maintain the same standards and curriculum. Introduce standardized teaching manuals

Health, Education and Natural Resources are provincial matters. Its in the constitution.

[Riverwind]

2. Nationalize healthcare and education to make it available to all walks of life, rich or poor. The education system should be entirely free from kindergarten to undergrad in universities. However, students are required to pay for books and residence if they require it. All schools should maintain the same standards and curriculum. Introduce standardized teaching manuals

I was talking to a German about thier free university system. Apparently it takes 7 years to get a 4 year degree in Germany because there are not enough spaces in the classes. It turns out that Germany has exactly the same problem we have with our health system: the gov't cannot control costs by limiting demand with higher fees to users so instead it limits supply to control costs. The net result is you end up with an unequal system where the rich go to private universities and get their degrees quickly while the rest waste valuable working years in an inefficient system.

[PatM]

I was talking to a German about thier free university system. Apparently it takes 7 years to get a 4 year degree in Germany because there are not enough spaces in the classes. It turns out that Germany has exactly the same problem we have with our health system: the gov't cannot control costs by limiting demand with higher fees to users so instead it limits supply to control costs. The net result is you end up with an unequal system where the rich go to private universities and get their degrees quickly while the rest waste valuable working years in an inefficient system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Any why is that? Because government sees corporate tax cuts to be much more important than eduction - pure and simple. Government by the corporation, for the corporation, and of the corporation.

[bigdude]

I think it is a very progressive platform and quite frankly, living in Canada, who gices a tinker's damm about our military.

Our biggest military threat, bare none, comes from South of the border.

[Guest eureka]

Just curious, Hugo. Where in rural Wales? I have a brother living in Prestatyn and another in Newtown. The first retired there and the second retired to the family roots. I used to, as a kid, spend a lot of time in North Wales. I recall cycling over the Devil's Bridge once.

[Technocrat]

Just to clear things up... private businesses are no more effecient at operating a service then the government is. Note my name... technocrat... it is derived from the private sectors equivalent to the public sectors beureaucrat. Technocracy Vs Beureaucracy... its the same organizational structure. The organizational structures of big business and government are almost identical. The difference being that if the levels of efficiency are favouring the private sector the 'profits' do not benifit the end user and do not neccesarily translate into better services. On a per dollar input basis services rendered is identical the difference being that if it is a public institution the public has an indirect method of control & benifit...

this post is incomplete i will finish it in the morning.

[PatM]

Looking forward to it, Technocrat.

[PatM]

Doh - my apologies Hugo, I didn't mean to ignore your response - I missed it.

About minimum wage:

Your orignal statement was that minimum wages create unemployment. I pointed out that the existance of a minimum wage does not, in fact, create unemployment as a rule. It is the level of minimum wage that determines its effect on unemployment.

I said that not to contradict you but to clarify. You may understand the difference, but neo-liberals simply parrot "minimum wage creates unemployment" without any mention of market clearing rates.

Minimum wage is required only so long as NAIRU policy creates artificially high unemployment - creating an excess of labour in relation to jobs. Remove the artificially high unemployment and minimum wage laws will be largely redundant

TV's and profit motive:

People don't die if they cannot afford a TV - that rebuttal was nonsense.

Government control of health care - I think we are close on this one (though not in total agreement)

I said government control, not necessarily government delivery.

What I think the capitalist version of health care should be:

- Government covers all Canadians for health care - single payer system.

- Delivery of health care should be a competition. Let private business deliver the healthcare according to government rules. Whomever can meet (or exceed) the requirements gets the business.

My understanding of capitalism according to Mises makes this a perfectly viable and acceptable method of health care delivery. Capitalism does not preclude government as a single-payer for healthcare, it just precludes a monopoly provider of the services.

Where I think we differ is in that I do not trust government to come up with an acceptable set of rules nor to oversee the delivery to ensure delivery according to those rules by private enterprise - not under our current system of campaign finance. Private healthcare companies have too much money and therefore too much influence over politicians. There are already LOTS of examples just here in BC how politicians look the other way when private providers break the rules while donating BIGTIME to political campaigns.

Of course from a pure market view, single payer isn't as good as multiple payer. I'm just not willing to let people die simply because they cannot afford care.

Reform campaign finance so that big money doesn't mean big influence and I'll gladly switch from advocatiing non-profit delivery to profit-based, competative delivery.

As to lauding Austrian economics:

I admire Mises but I don't ignore reality. There is no way in hell that tomorrow morning the country will wake up and have a pure capitalist system. Right now the system we have is rediculously biased toward monopolization. Before we can hope to "free up" markets, we have to bust up the monopolies and oligopolies then remove the economic policies that favour business in general. Until then, our markets are cannot be free in the capitalist sense. They would only be free in the fascist sense.

[Hugo]

Just curious, Hugo. Where in rural Wales?

Llandysul, in Ceredigion.

Your orignal statement was that minimum wages create unemployment. I pointed out that the existance of a minimum wage does not, in fact, create unemployment as a rule. It is the level of minimum wage that determines its effect on unemployment.

A minimum wage does not necessarily create unemployment if you deviate from the economic definition of a minimum wage. However, what we understand by minimum wage is setting a wage floor above the lowest market clearing wage. This does create unemployment.

TV's and profit motive:

My point is to show you that in the free market, every product in history has steadily dropped in price while increasing in quality. This means that over time more and more people will be able to afford these products, all the while returning good profits (this is the incentive to try and make the products better and cheaper). Cars and televisions were once possessed only by the rich. Now they are within the grasp of all. So it would be with free-market healthcare, although it may be the case that initially some might not be able to afford healthcare (given that the government has been fixing wages and prices for such a long time that it has completely distorted the market mechanisms that were actually making healthcare cheaper and better up until the 1930s, in the US at least), over time healthcare would become both better and cheaper, affordable to all. In the meantime charity would probably make up the shortfall, at least until the great wealth that free markets deliver came into effect. If we introduced a completely free market I believe that everybody at every income level would have healthcare within years, not generations.

Compare this to government healthcare, which does not increase in quality or decrease in price. Canadian healthcare gets ever more expensive and the quality does not increase. Just this year, in Ontario many services have been cut and healthcare premiums have been reintroduced. Could you imagine car manufacturers announcing next year that there would be no more ABS brakes and airbags, and the price of a car would increase by $2000? I don't think so.

People don't die if they cannot afford a TV

This argument is nonsense. The fact is that people put their health at a less than prime priority every day - smokers, substance abusers, extreme-sport enthusiasts, even drivers, airline passengers, etc.

I said government control, not necessarily government delivery.

It amounts to the same thing. If healthcare is provided by the market but controlled by government, then the state will pick which companies get to provide not by efficiency or customer satisfaction but by kickbacks and party contributions, by meeting silly criteria (look at how government regulation has destroyed the daycare industry), and so forth. US healthcare is government controlled and not government-delivered.

My understanding of capitalism according to Mises makes this a perfectly viable and acceptable method of health care delivery.

Then you don't understand von Mises very well. He never argued for state control of anything except law and justice. His student Murray Rothbard would not even argue for that, as he believed that the very existence of the state was immoral and unethical and there was nothing the state provided which the free market could not provide for us at less cost and greater quality.

Of course from a pure market view, single payer isn't as good as multiple payer. I'm just not willing to let people die simply because they cannot afford care.

Are you asserting that people have a right to healthcare? Are you aware that that is a positive right and thus completely at odds with Austrian doctrine, which holds that no right can oblige a man to give to another by threat or force, and no right can require certain social or technological developments to be fulfilled?

I admire Mises but I don't ignore reality. There is no way in hell that tomorrow morning the country will wake up and have a pure capitalist system.

Then you will make compromises and end up quite anticapitalist. I'll refer you to William Lloyd Garrison:

"Urge immediate abolition as earnestly as we may, alas! it will be gradual abolition in the end. We have never said that slavery would be overthrown by a single blow; that it ought to be, we shall always contend."

There is nothing wrong with recognising that we will not get a free market overnight, but you should never stop advocating a free market anyway. As the old-guard libertarians discovered, once you compromise your position, you've lost.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

My point is to show you that in the free market, every product in history has steadily dropped in price while increasing in quality

This is nonsense. If it were true, televisions would be fantastic and free. Sure, you can get a 'cheap' TV, but they are crap. I personally can't afford a 10,000 dollar plasma TV, (or at least I am unwilling to put that much money towards one and sacrifice other things that could be bought with that money).

Technology increases quality, but in order to maximise profit, prices tend to go up and quality must go down, but carefully, so you don't lose customers. For example, Hostess Chips recently were challenged about raising thier prices on a bag of chips, when they decreased the volume in the bag. It was decided that they did nothing wrong, as long as the bag's contents were clearly marked. Fair enough, but they aren't about to advertise "Our chips still come in the same size bag, but now contain 20% less!"

[Hugo]

This is nonsense. If it were true, televisions would be fantastic and free.

The only things that will ever be free are those that are so abundant as to be virtually infinite in supply, like air.

Sure, you can get a 'cheap' TV, but they are crap.

This is going to hurt, Thelonius. Sorry.

No, they are not. This is what $200 buys you today. This is what $200 bought you in 1950.

But by CPI, $200 then is worth over $1500 today. So we should really compare that 1950 RCA model to this.

You are seriously telling me that TVs have not dropped in price and increased in quality?

For example, Hostess Chips recently were challenged about raising thier prices on a bag of chips, when they decreased the volume in the bag. It was decided that they did nothing wrong, as long as the bag's contents were clearly marked. Fair enough, but they aren't about to advertise "Our chips still come in the same size bag, but now contain 20% less!"

You seem to have noticed anyway, so what's the problem? If people no longer feel that Hostess Chips are worth their money, they won't buy them. If they continue to buy them, obviously they do!

It can be the case that forces outside of human control may make prices go up, for instance. I was working in IT in the late 90s and a fire at a major RAM manufacturer caused prices to rise. However, within 6 months they were still lower than they were before the fire. Similarly, a company may decide to gouge its customers, They will be quickly eliminated by competitors who do not. These minor interruptions do not greatly disturb the general trend of increasing quality and decreasing price.

[PatM]

Are you asserting that people have a right to healthcare? Are you aware that that is a positive right and thus completely at odds with Austrian doctrine, which holds that no right can oblige a man to give to another by threat or force, and no right can require certain social or technological developments to be fulfilled?

I am asserting that, yes.

You are asserting that people performing the less "valued" services in the capitalist system do not deserve health care and should die when sick instead of being a "burden" on others.

You're taking capitalism as the only "truth" in this world. There are other truths as well, such as the social contract.

If we were to persue capitalism to absurdity, there could be no countries - differing laws on trade and business create inequal business climates. If your country is catholic and mine is buddist, that creates different business climates and therefore both must be abolished in favour of free markets.

The one thing Mises incorrectly assumes is perfect knowledge by the market participants. He assumes that consumers would shy away from businesses that do things they do not like - which is true. What he doesn't account for is that the business of information dissemination can, and does, omit passing on information that consumers require in order to make informed choices when puchasing goods.

Media companies, that are moving towards (and in some cases have achieved) monopolization do not report thier own activities, these same corporations are headed up by directors that also sit on many other boards - the activities of those companies, when not favorable, are rarely passed on to the consumer.

Capitalism, without an informed consumer, is not capitalism at all.

[Hugo]

I am asserting that, yes.

Then on what ethical grounds do you justify forcing one man to labour for another when he will not do so willingly? This is slavery.

There are other truths as well, such as the social contract.

If you review other threads I have posted in I have already refuted social contract theory. It doesn't work. Review Lysander Spooner's writings for an in-depth refutation.

If we were to persue capitalism to absurdity, there could be no countries

Yes, and no wars, and no trade barriers, and no concentration camps, and no political police - what a horrible world.

The one thing Mises incorrectly assumes is perfect knowledge by the market participants.

No, actually von Mises acknowledges that information assymetry is inevitable and may actually be beneficial. One of the things Austrians attack Chicagoites on is Chicagoite insistence on perfect imformation, which Austrians state is impossible and therefore to focus on it is to claim the market is imperfect by comparison with an impossible model.