Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Want to rescue rural America? Bust monopolies

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 353 posts

Re: Want to rescue rural America? Bust monopolies

#291

Post by mozumder »

jessaustin wrote: post #259
mozumder wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's your point in your false equivalency? Are you implying that the 20 million people that now have medical coverage because of Democrats pushing for Obamacare isn't worth it? Was that all "talk"? I'm seriously trying to understand your "equivalency" position. Let me know what the Republicans would have done for health care? Right now it seems that the only thing they've done is to actually limit universal health…

Yeah I'm such a racist conservative that I voted in the primary for Bernie, and certainly would have voted for him again in the general if DNC hadn't been in the tank for Mrs. Superpredator, because he had the most credible argument for something, anything different . Congratulations on electing Trump instead! Congratulations, too, on hypnotizing yourself into really believing that there's no one to your own left. Pe…

I don't understand.. are you saying you're not interested in the differences between the two parties, or are you saying ther are no differences between the two parties?

Because if it's the latter, do you think the 20 million additional people that receive health-care under Obamacare isn't a difference?

Because, like Joe Biden said, it's a "big fucking deal".

Also, you're not helping your cause by saying you're a Bernie-bro. Bernie-bros are generally racist, as he supports a largely xenophobic nativist trade policy.

There's a reason Bernie's base is largely white. Bernie and Trump supporters are the same.

In the end, you should never trust anyone that claims the two parties are equal. Those people have other problems they need to work out first. Maybe they just don't want 20 million Americans to have health care?

Re: Want to rescue rural America? Bust monopolies

#292

Post by 6t6t6t6 »

cs702 wrote: post #4

"I started a manufacturing company in Little Elm, about 35 miles north of Dallas, to produce the first-ever automatically retracting syringe to eliminate the risk of nurses contracting HIV through accidental needle sticks. The syringe received rave reviews from nurses, hospital executives and public health officials, a major grant from the National Institutes of Health and robust private investment. But when my partn…

The paradox is that a market, in order to be free, needs regulation.

Markets don't tend to entropy by themselves.

Re: Want to rescue rural America? Bust monopolies

#293

Post by virmundi »

JackFr wrote: post #92
skummetmaelk wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the thing though, that is exactly what a late stage "free market" looks like. What you need is a heavily regulated market that prevents exactly this behaviour. People need to stop wishing for the "free" market. The term is abused by orators and manipulators who prey on peoples desire for a market which is free in the spirit of the word, and deliver to them a market which is technically "free" and horrible.

> What you need is a heavily regulated market that prevents exactly this behaviour. That seems like the opposite of a solution. For such a system to work one has to believe that that the regulatory apparatus is staffed with monks who are unaffected by the temptations of wealth, power and vanity that other humans are subject to and that 'regulatory capture' isn't a real thing. Further that the price mechanism as an in…

This is why I'm pro lynch mob. Allow a free market with few if any regulations. Also allow for common violence if a company strays too far from customs. If a CEO is shown to pollute the water ways there is always an AR15 out there.

Few people fear violence since they know the law is weak.

Re: Want to rescue rural America? Bust monopolies

#294

Post by s73ver »

bko wrote: post #144
maxerickson wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the argument being made. The buyer is better off staying with the single supplier. The argument is that this is a breakdown in markets and should be regulated (for instance by breaking the supplier apart).

If the buyer is better off, and presumably the consumer, who's worse off? The woman who wrote the article that can't compete? She can't force the hospital to go against its interest and purchase her product?

That doesn't mean the consumer is better off. The consumer is missing out on better products. The economy is also worse off, because it is missing out on competition which would drive the prices down, and provide jobs.

In an ideal world, such agreements would be illegal, leading to a freer market.

Re: Want to rescue rural America? Bust monopolies

#295

Post by grecy »

cs702 wrote: post #4

"I started a manufacturing company in Little Elm, about 35 miles north of Dallas, to produce the first-ever automatically retracting syringe to eliminate the risk of nurses contracting HIV through accidental needle sticks. The syringe received rave reviews from nurses, hospital executives and public health officials, a major grant from the National Institutes of Health and robust private investment. But when my partn…

>is not a free market

One of the things that fascinates and terrifies me most about American political discourse is this need to label things, and then have those labels divide people into polar opposites so they argue endlessly about the label, instead of the actual issue.

Really, who gives a s&%t what the hell you call the system you have now. It's completely meaningless. What really matters is you decide if it's good or not, and what to do about fixing it. THAT'S what really matters.

Americans have forgotten the point is to actually get around to improving things, they are so busy arguing about labels. "Single Payer" vs "Socialism", "Theocracy" vs. "Democracy", etc. etc.

Re: Want to rescue rural America? Bust monopolies

#296

Post by vira »

Qwertious wrote: post #104
skummetmaelk wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the thing though, that is exactly what a late stage "free market" looks like. What you need is a heavily regulated market that prevents exactly this behaviour. People need to stop wishing for the "free" market. The term is abused by orators and manipulators who prey on peoples desire for a market which is free in the spirit of the word, and deliver to them a market which is technically "free" and horrible.

'People need to stop wishing for the "free" market. The term is abused by orators and manipulators who prey on peoples desire for a market which is free in the spirit of the word, and deliver to them a market which is technically "free" and horrible.' Don't call it the free market. Call it what it is: COMPETITION. "Free market" implies "I can do what I want", but frankly we don't WANT people to be free to pull anti-c…

I've always preferred the term 'open market' rather than 'free market' to counter this exact point.

Re: Want to rescue rural America? Bust monopolies

#297

Post by vira »

Qwertious wrote: post #104
skummetmaelk wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the thing though, that is exactly what a late stage "free market" looks like. What you need is a heavily regulated market that prevents exactly this behaviour. People need to stop wishing for the "free" market. The term is abused by orators and manipulators who prey on peoples desire for a market which is free in the spirit of the word, and deliver to them a market which is technically "free" and horrible.

'People need to stop wishing for the "free" market. The term is abused by orators and manipulators who prey on peoples desire for a market which is free in the spirit of the word, and deliver to them a market which is technically "free" and horrible.' Don't call it the free market. Call it what it is: COMPETITION. "Free market" implies "I can do what I want", but frankly we don't WANT people to be free to pull anti-c…

I've always preferred the term 'open market' rather than 'free market' to counter this exact point.

Re: Want to rescue rural America? Bust monopolies

#298

Post by ubernostrum »

jpindar wrote: post #182
arrosenberg wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Walmart. Walmart has destroyed thousands of businesses. Now you can argue the consumer got lower prices, but low prices don't matter when no one has money to afford them. Additionally, those economies of scale produced cheap, disposable, polluting goods that have an engineered lifetime so that customers have to keep buying the same appliance (or whatever) over and over. The question isn't when economies of scale hurt…

How does Wal-mart stay in business if "no one has money to afford them"?

They stay in business courtesy of government programs to keep people afloat enough to afford basic necessities, and by negotiating to pay reduced or no local taxes or infrastructure costs, coupled with relocating stores any time a tax-break deal expires. As long as you don't have to pay a living wage (because the government picks up the difference) and don't have to pay the cost of building and maintaining the infrastructure of your store (because the government picks up the difference), you can "sustain" an otherwise-unprofitable business for quite a long time.

Re: Want to rescue rural America? Bust monopolies

#299

Post by astrange »

burfog wrote: post #258
stinkytaco wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The ban on pre-existing conditions was done either because the drafters of Obamacare have no clue what insurance actually is, or they actually wanted to destroy health insurance. No one is going to pay for coverage when healthy if they can sign up when sick. This is what the tax penalty was meant to prevent, correct? I'm curious, what is your solution to insuring people with pre-existing conditions?

If is to be insurance then people with pre-existing conditions should get coverage for everything that isn't related to the condition. Got cancer? Fine, we'll still cover breaking your leg, as long as the break isn't from cancer invading the bone or from cancer drugs weakening your bones. You're on your own for the cancer.

You want a useless product that will guarantee your death because it meets the dictionary definition of insurance?

This is why the real policy issue is lack of healthcare, not lack of "health insurance", which is a fake benefit invented to maybe get you healthcare.

Re: Want to rescue rural America? Bust monopolies

#300

Post by Frondo »

ericHosick wrote: post #229
jaredklewis wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Difficult indeed. An ordinary American internet user consents to countless pages of legalese in adhesion and other unread contracts (TOSs, privacy policies and so on) everyday day. These days, every website, piece of software, digital service or product comes with pages upon pages of contracts to which the user must consent to even walk in the door. Reading all of them is easily a full time job. So, no one has coerce…

This is a deep discussion to have: too deep for a medium like HN. That being said... Your points pre-suppose parties consented to a dispute resolution system: one that is based on arbitrary boundaries and quite monopolistic (1). > I can see why people don't think that the barebones style of "free market" is very free. So, I agree that it is hard for people to understand what consent is when they were never given a ch…

"(1) Example being I was born in the USA so somehow automatically consented to the rules of the land."

Your parents consented on your behalf when you were born. Parents everywhere are entitled to make legal decisions for their offspring before the children reach the age of majority; this is what yours did for you.

When you reached the age of majority, you suddenly gained the freedom to consent on your own (by remaining) or reject the terms of living in your country of origin (by leaving).

There's no mystery about being ensnared into something you didn't ask for; your parents did so for you, following a tradition and law as universal and old as time.

Post reply on HN