Has Western capitalism become too efficient and ruthless?

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
6,107
Find me an EU country of 20 Mil and compare it to NY-state and 40 Mil and compare it to CA, then you will see.
See what?

And 20 million? There's really only one, and that's Romania. Though the Netherlands probably comes close enough with 17. Rather go with Netherlands for comparison then I guess.

The EU 40-million nation EU club is just Poland and Spain.

What do we do with the comparison?
 

David Vagamundo

Ad Honorem
Jan 2010
4,439
Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Chrome is the name of Google's browser, not the name of a search engine.
  • Microsoft is doing everything it can to prop up Bing and it still only gets 2.5% market share.
  • Baidu has the great advantage of China's great firewall simply blocking access to Google so the Chinese use what they can (=Baidu).
  • Yahoo doesn't have it's own search engine, instead it uses a combination of Google and Bing to provide it's ads and search results - so it's just a front-end.
  • Yandex is Russian and concentrates on that market as much as Baidu concentrates on China.
  • That leaves DuckDuckGo as the third independent option with a market share of a whopping 0.4%.


There is a whiff of the no true Scotsman fallacy in the air.. why can't he approve of certain non-profit monopolies for the public good while disproving of privately owned for-profit monopolies? It's only ironic if you don't understand the difference.
Thank for the corrections.

Maybe Google has more market share, but what’s that to you or to me? We still have choices.

Your characterization of government run healthcare as “certain non-profit monopolies” is inaccurate: I have not heard of one that was not controlled by the government, like the NHS. If you have something else in mind, please let me know.

Maybe the NHS is not a monopoly, but what’s being proposed for the US would be. We’d have no choices: we’d be required to use the government’s choice. Maybe you’ve got a lot of confidence in the government, but I don’t. The US can’y even seem to carry out a simple function like policing its southern border. K12 education, particularly for African-Americans is terrible, which leads to crime and crowded jails and prisons.

And any monopoly—regardless of profit or non-profit, private or government—is bad because it (a) takes away our ability to choose what we believe is best for us (b) stifles innovation and (c) over time, will lead to higher and higher costs and lower and lower service levels. And if the monopoly is run by the government, then it is enforced by law. No one forces me to use Google search-engine.

I’m on Medicare and it works because we have choices: we can choose to only have hospitalization and pay the rest of the costs out of pocket, or to have routine medical coverage and prescription coverage. If we make that choice, as I have, you have a further range of choices, none of which is right for every person. Blue Cross, Aetna, etc . And then we can choose what doctors to see, what hospitals to go to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Iraq Bruin

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
14,825
Europix
Your characterization of government run healthcare as “certain non-profit monopolies” is inaccurate: I have not heard of one that was not controlled by the government, like the NHS. If you have something else in mind, please let me know.

If the US adopted an NHS-type scheme, we’d have no choices: we’d be required to use the government’s choice.
Universal healthcare coverage systems are much more diverse than just the NHS. And no, they aren't all government controlled, nor are all monopolies.
 

David Vagamundo

Ad Honorem
Jan 2010
4,439
Atlanta, Georgia USA
Since chefren has already shown you to be wrong about "Chrome", I won't go over that ground. Suffice it to say, that just because goods are available elsewhere, it doesn't mean Amazon is not an effective monopoly.

Actually, I'm not attacking them. I'm simply pointing them out as monopolies, which you say were outlawed. They're excellent examples of the way free markets tend towards monopolies.

You say they're facing government action. If they need government action to regulate them, then the markets are not free.

As gas been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the NHS is not a monopoly.
I’m not arguing for a completely unregulated economy as in the UK in the 19th and in the US in the late 19th century. The possibility that some few businesses might end up as monopolies is not in my view any reason for throwing the whole system out and adopting something else.

Socialism “tends toward” repression. I suspect you’ve read George Orwell and know you’re up to date on current events in China and Venezuela as well as the history of the Soviet Union. I’m not saying you’re in favor of socialism, but given the choice between a market economy and a socialist one, I can’t understand why anyone who lived through the 20th century would choose socialism.
 

David Vagamundo

Ad Honorem
Jan 2010
4,439
Atlanta, Georgia USA
The question isn't if it should be free or not, it's should anyone profit off it? As for water: Baltimore votes to become first large U.S. city to ban water privatization - Reuters
Why ban it? The City or an agency now controls the water supply there as it does here in DeKalb County, Georgia. If the City or the County doesn’t want privatized water, don’t permit any competition or transfer the water operation.

And as much as I love Baltimore, it is hardly a model for a functioning city. So I suspect this is simply a political stunt to distract attention from Baltimore’s other, real, problems.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Iraq Bruin

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
35,879
T'Republic of Yorkshire
Maybe the NHS is not a monopoly, but what’s being proposed for the US would be. We’d have no choices: we’d be required to use the government’s choice.
Then it's not similar to the NHS at all. No one HAS to use the NHS here if they can afford private medical insurance. But 90% of people are happy with it and do not have private insurance.
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
35,879
T'Republic of Yorkshire
I’m not arguing for a completely unregulated economy as in the UK in the 19th and in the US in the late 19th century. The possibility that some few businesses might end up as monopolies is not in my view any reason for throwing the whole system out and adopting something else.

Socialism “tends toward” repression. I suspect you’ve read George Orwell and know you’re up to date on current events in China and Venezuela as well as the history of the Soviet Union. I’m not saying you’re in favor of socialism, but given the choice between a market economy and a socialist one, I can’t understand why anyone who lived through the 20th century would choose socialism.
I disagree that socialism tends towards repression, any more than the socialised insurance system does.

China and the USSR were communist. China can hardly be described as that now.

Since WW2, Western Europe has managed to run what the US would call "socialist" governments without "trending towards repression". Whereas in the internet age in particular, in almost every sector, a single company has come to dominate.

And market share *absolutely* matters. Market share drives profits and buying power. Amazon can, and does, drive competitors into bankruptcy, or simply buy them out. Almost no one can compete with them on an even basis. Basic economics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: johnminnitt

Iraq Bruin

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
5,197
DC
I live in an area where medicine, medical research and medical technology is strong. I had my meniscus repaired by a surgeon who performs the same surgery on professional athletes. I know some of the posts have discussed health outcomes and accessibility. In my region, we have an abundance of great medical care. There is also a good deal of market competition between two health care insurers and that benefits the consumer.
I have an exact experience with my meniscus, the surgeon used to work the Washington Redskins.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rodger

Iraq Bruin

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
5,197
DC
See what?

And 20 million? There's really only one, and that's Romania. Though the Netherlands probably comes close enough with 17. Rather go with Netherlands for comparison then I guess.

The EU 40-million nation EU club is just Poland and Spain.

What do we do with the comparison?
Part of what I want to highlight is acknowledging that different European nations use different health systems and administration, it is a prime example of acknowledging local needs and differences for the services rendered.

We are nation of 300+ Mil with 50+ constituent entities (states, districts and territories) , I can not imagine a system that would work effectively well for everyone, it is why I keep bringing the public education system run by states and counties.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rodger