Live data from Hacker News

Reinvigorating the most important battle in economics

palladiummag.com

41–50 of 66 posts

Re: Reinvigorating the most important battle in economics

#41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Health care prices can be virtually as high as you like if you can make health care scarce enough, because pretty much everybody wants to live. Everybody needs food, too, but food is as cheap as dirt.

There's a lot more competition in the food market. Bananas too expensive? Just get oranges. Asthma meds too expensive? Take out a loan, drive to anthercountry, or roll the dice and maybe die.

Government interference has severely limited competition in health care. For just one example, after Obamacare passed my health insurance provider decided to exit the business, and there is only one provider left in the county. They have a monopoly. I pay far higher premiums now, and can only go to "network" doctors.

Re: Reinvigorating the most important battle in economics

#42

> Rather than lean and efficient services, privatization appears to have led to administrative bloat, price inflation, and a gutting of state capacity. Privatization of government services is not the same thing as a free market, and hence free market forces are not applying to it. In a free market, when a business contracts for services from another business, it is motivated by value received and price paid. When the…

> Privatization of government services is not the same thing as a free market, and hence free market forces are not applying to it.

The problem is that nothing is the “same thing as a free market”. Free market don't exist in the real world, and the market forces are way less powerful than what we would like. They are almost always dwarfed by other forces (transaction cost, network effect, economies of scale, and information asymmetry for instance).

Remember, the free market model comes from an era when chemistry was modeled with the 4 elements !

Re: Reinvigorating the most important battle in economics

#43

> Rather than lean and efficient services, privatization appears to have led to administrative bloat, price inflation, and a gutting of state capacity. Privatization of government services is not the same thing as a free market, and hence free market forces are not applying to it. In a free market, when a business contracts for services from another business, it is motivated by value received and price paid. When the…

In principle competitive bidding should result in cost savings because anyone who could do it for significantly less could profit by submitting a lower bid.

The problem is some combination of corruption and regulatory requirements. If the bureaucrats write the contract in such a way that only one company can satisfy it, that company has no effective competition so they don't have to compete on price. Same thing if the contract requirements, or the paperwork required to enter into the bidding itself, are such that smaller entities need not apply and you again have insufficient competition to drive down prices.

But none of that goes away by bringing the project in house either, you just trade corruption and high costs by contractors for corruption and high costs by public sector unions, and in that case there is explicitly not even the possibility for competition.

So you still either have to solve the corruption and bureaucracy somehow (effective method unknown), or move the project entirely to the private sector, e.g. by using the money instead to make tax cuts for regular people or transfer payments so that instead of government housing projects you leave people with the money to buy market rate housing directly, or whatever else they need.

Re: Reinvigorating the most important battle in economics

#44

> Rather than lean and efficient services, privatization appears to have led to administrative bloat, price inflation, and a gutting of state capacity. Privatization of government services is not the same thing as a free market, and hence free market forces are not applying to it. In a free market, when a business contracts for services from another business, it is motivated by value received and price paid. When the…

> Privatization of government services is not the same thing as a free market, and hence free market forces are not applying to it. The problem is that nothing is the “same thing as a free market”. Free market don't exist in the real world, and the market forces are way less powerful than what we would like. They are almost always dwarfed by other forces (transaction cost, network effect, economies of scale, and info…

> They are almost always dwarfed by other forces (transaction cost, network effect, economies of scale, and information asymmetry for instance).

Those are all free markets, too. Consider information asymmetry, for example. The less I know about something, the riskier it will be for me to buy it, hence the less I am willing to pay for it.

I.e. information asymmetry is called risk, and is accounted for in the pricing. Companies are incentivized to reduce risk for their customers, because then they can charge a higher price.

Re: Reinvigorating the most important battle in economics

#45

> Rather than lean and efficient services, privatization appears to have led to administrative bloat, price inflation, and a gutting of state capacity. Privatization of government services is not the same thing as a free market, and hence free market forces are not applying to it. In a free market, when a business contracts for services from another business, it is motivated by value received and price paid. When the…

> Privatization of government services is not the same thing as a free market, and hence free market forces are not applying to it. The problem is that nothing is the “same thing as a free market”. Free market don't exist in the real world, and the market forces are way less powerful than what we would like. They are almost always dwarfed by other forces (transaction cost, network effect, economies of scale, and info…

> Remember, the free market model comes from an era when chemistry was modeled with the 4 elements !

I fail to see how the age of the model has anything whatsoever to say to its validity. Not everything old is stupid; not everything new is right. If you want to disprove the free market model, you have to do a lot better than pointing out that it's old.

It is true that perfectly free markets don't exist in the world. That doesn't mean that the model isn't useful as an approximate ideal.

Re: Reinvigorating the most important battle in economics

#46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Does anyone really believe health care prices are correct? Yes. Market clearing prices are set by the intersection of desire/need and scarcity. Health care prices can be virtually as high as you like if you can make health care scarce enough, because pretty much everybody wants to live. The greatest profits are usually found where scarcity meets desperation. This is also why most large corporations spend half of the…

> Health care prices can be virtually as high as you like if you can make health care scarce enough, because pretty much everybody wants to live. Everybody needs food, too, but food is as cheap as dirt.

There's also the fact that very expensive food negatively affects most of the people at pretty much the same time, hence the food riots that were still a fact of life until not very long ago (and they still happen from time to time in places like Egypt or India), but expensive health-care affects just some of the people and more importantly not at the same time, so it's pretty difficult to rally up a mob that would take care of the "healthcare is too expensive problem" in the same way that the "grain is too expensive problem" was being taken care of by the Middle Age crowds.

Re: Reinvigorating the most important battle in economics

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Privatization of government services is not the same thing as a free market, and hence free market forces are not applying to it. The problem is that nothing is the “same thing as a free market”. Free market don't exist in the real world, and the market forces are way less powerful than what we would like. They are almost always dwarfed by other forces (transaction cost, network effect, economies of scale, and info…

> Remember, the free market model comes from an era when chemistry was modeled with the 4 elements ! I fail to see how the age of the model has anything whatsoever to say to its validity. Not everything old is stupid; not everything new is right. If you want to disprove the free market model, you have to do a lot better than pointing out that it's old. It is true that perfectly free markets don't exist in the world.…

The complete inability to predict anything useful[1] is a clear marker of the failure of this model though…

[1]: crisis for starter…

Re: Reinvigorating the most important battle in economics

#48
post #6

A fundamental assumption of mainstream economics is that market prices are approximately correct. This is more for pragmatic reasons than anything; you need some sort of prices to compare unlike things and it's often easy to get some consensus on what the market price is. If you want to calculate GDP some other way then you will need to decide what millions of prices "should" be and persuade others with your argument…

> If you want to calculate GDP some other way then you will need to decide what millions of prices "should" be and persuade others with your argument.

It's a bit worse than that because cost, value and price are all different things.

The amortized cost of making water available from the tap is pennies per gallon. The value of water is nigh infinite because without it you die. The price is presumably somewhere between those two values, but it could be anywhere -- an efficient water company might charge close to the cost but a robber baron with a hard monopoly on water might charge close to the value. The market only tells you the price, not the cost or the value.

In a lot of cases it doesn't even tell you that. Consider what happens when a person spends time on a hobby. The cost is not zero, the value is not zero, and there is no price. Even more complicated, suppose the hobby is writing free software. Then there is no price (or it's zero, which isn't very informative) but you have value being derived by people all over the world, who may each value it in a different amount.

> Philosophically, even major changes like a carbon tax or universal basic income are basically just patches to get prices somewhere closer to what we think they should be.

A carbon tax is definitely about pricing an externality. A UBI is kind of the opposite. It's basically admitting that we don't know how to value everything correctly so instead of that here's the money, go choose what you need for yourself.

Re: Reinvigorating the most important battle in economics

#49

> Rather than lean and efficient services, privatization appears to have led to administrative bloat, price inflation, and a gutting of state capacity. Privatization of government services is not the same thing as a free market, and hence free market forces are not applying to it. In a free market, when a business contracts for services from another business, it is motivated by value received and price paid. When the…

In principle competitive bidding should result in cost savings because anyone who could do it for significantly less could profit by submitting a lower bid. The problem is some combination of corruption and regulatory requirements. If the bureaucrats write the contract in such a way that only one company can satisfy it, that company has no effective competition so they don't have to compete on price. Same thing if th…

Or, find new models that don't require a government to be involved in building things at all. The existing solutions (e.g. privately developed toll roads instead of public highways) have their own issues, but this is one potential solution space to explore.

Re: Reinvigorating the most important battle in economics

#50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Does anyone really believe health care prices are correct? Yes. Market clearing prices are set by the intersection of desire/need and scarcity. Health care prices can be virtually as high as you like if you can make health care scarce enough, because pretty much everybody wants to live. The greatest profits are usually found where scarcity meets desperation. This is also why most large corporations spend half of the…

> Health care prices can be virtually as high as you like if you can make health care scarce enough, because pretty much everybody wants to live. Everybody needs food, too, but food is as cheap as dirt.

Meaning it's not scarce now and there's no easy way to make it scarce.

Like oxygen.

I can grow food in my back garden. I can't grow medical care.

Post reply on HN