Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

PETRUS

(3,678 posts)
64. Two different ways to answer.
Tue Jul 17, 2012, 02:28 PM
Jul 2012

Producing policy suggestions is one thing. Overcoming the political dominance of a small but powerful minority is another.

There is no shortage of policy ideas, many of which fit into the basic framework we already have and don't require significant changes to how we are organized politically and economically. I don't agree with you that "free markets" are inherently corrupt. They just don't function (or even exist) as advertised. People are corruptible, and it's important to guard against that. We must be aware of the incentives and disincentives and adjust them as needed. For example, a tiny financial transaction tax would remove the incentives for a fair amount of trading that is profitable for the traders but contributes nothing to the real economy.

By the way, the right wing is not in favor of free markets! At least not the politically empowered movers and shakers who lead what we call the right wing. They use that language because it resonates with the public. But when one looks at policy, it's clear they don't mean what they say.

So what would a market-oriented solution be like? Health care is an interesting place to look. The cost of health care is an enormous burden on individuals as well as the sole reason for projected future Federal budget deficits. There is no shortage of foreign-trained doctors who would like to come practice in America, but we artificially limit the supply. We do we design policies with the specific intention of creating global competition to drive down the price of manufactured goods but maintain (or increase, which is the reality with medicine) protections that keep the costs of health services high? We could coordinate with other countries so that they train physicians to US standards and let them come work here. In addition, we could allow (or require) US insurers and Medicare to pay for treatment outside the country at enormous savings. We could have something more like free trade in pharmaceuticals. Right now the Federal government provides somewhere in the neighborhood of 1/3 to 1/2 of the funds for drug research. Of the money spent privately, only a sliver goes to "breakthrough" drugs. The lion's share goes to "copycat" drugs. This is incredibly inefficient and is a result of the patent system, which essentially grants monopolies and leads to monopoly pricing. Drugs cost ten times what they would cost in a free market. Economists get furious about the deadweight involved in taxes and tariffs that increase prices by a few percent. What about the deadweight in the patent system that increases prices by more than 100%? It would be cheaper overall to fund all of the research publicly and allow the drugs to be manufactured and sold in a competitive ("free&quot market.

(PS. Although I'm not sure why you associate this with Keynesian economics, you are right about the distorting effects of implicit guarantees like "too big to fail." According to some analysis the growth of the financial sector accounts for as much as 30% of the increase in inequality since 1980, and the implicit guarantees are one part of that story.)

Good points. pinto Jul 2012 #1
Look at all the factory towns along the Erie Canal, not to mention Buffalo hedgehog Jul 2012 #2
I give them this article . . . and all I get are brush-offs and goalpost movement. HughBeaumont Jul 2012 #3
My Republican family members are going off about this right now gollygee Jul 2012 #4
Hyperindividualism amfortas the hippie Jul 2012 #5
I think this is a bad argument to make hfojvt Jul 2012 #6
Obama should have vetted the speech... GreenMask Jul 2012 #7
thank you for your concern datasuspect Jul 2012 #8
Fuck the business community. nt Comrade_McKenzie Jul 2012 #16
There's a winning campaign slogan. (nt) nessa Jul 2012 #70
Did you hear the whole speech? Mz Pip Jul 2012 #77
Or their own... GreenMask Jul 2012 #79
So this hypothetical house - you would have built it all on your own, with no outside help at all? Hugabear Jul 2012 #9
What about risk? GreenMask Jul 2012 #10
That's not what we're talking about here Hugabear Jul 2012 #11
Somewhat GreenMask Jul 2012 #13
a house may be a bad example hfojvt Jul 2012 #19
you are missing the point I think- Bluerthanblue Jul 2012 #12
Defeated your own argument... GreenMask Jul 2012 #14
no, you are again missing the point. Bluerthanblue Jul 2012 #15
Not the argument from the right wing... GreenMask Jul 2012 #36
I guess this is one of those Bluerthanblue Jul 2012 #42
The 'right wing'? Meaning yourself of course. Kingofalldems Jul 2012 #56
no you are missing the point hfojvt Jul 2012 #17
saying you didn't get there 100% on your own Bluerthanblue Jul 2012 #20
The OP didn't say the mythological house Cerridwen Jul 2012 #25
+1 Bluerthanblue Jul 2012 #32
Anyone who says they made all their wealth themselves has denigrated others CreekDog Jul 2012 #21
You built that house with help from the American community in so many ways...think about it... uponit7771 Jul 2012 #22
Disparage hard work????? Who's even remotely close to such a line other than Reich Wingers?? patrice Jul 2012 #31
Did you build your house in Somalia? Swede Jul 2012 #46
The 1% didn't build their houses on their own. liberal N proud Jul 2012 #51
Disconnect with everyone in the conversation... GreenMask Jul 2012 #57
It is more about chance than individual effort. liberal N proud Jul 2012 #58
Uncertain... GreenMask Jul 2012 #59
Let's cut to the chase. PETRUS Jul 2012 #61
What is the solution? GreenMask Jul 2012 #62
Two different ways to answer. PETRUS Jul 2012 #64
In with Keynes GreenMask Jul 2012 #66
How many low-level jobs lead to advancement...? liberal N proud Jul 2012 #69
Let's try an example GreenMask Jul 2012 #71
That is laughable liberal N proud Jul 2012 #72
Not right off GreenMask Jul 2012 #73
Gee every kid is good at sports liberal N proud Jul 2012 #75
Married people are less likely to be poor. GreenMask Jul 2012 #80
See this... liberal N proud Jul 2012 #84
Teach us about Free Enterprise and such! Kingofalldems Jul 2012 #74
Your analogy doesn't get out of the basement... Jeff In Milwaukee Jul 2012 #60
Bingo deaniac21 Jul 2012 #68
I agree. I think the big thing here is the baseline. What is "all by myself"... hughee99 Jul 2012 #83
Only a small fraction of government spending goes to things that help business FarCenter Jul 2012 #18
government is not just "federal spending" CreekDog Jul 2012 #23
With state and local government, by any metric, most government activity is not useful to business FarCenter Jul 2012 #24
you say police,fire protection, roads, sewers, military, people getting their checks not useful... CreekDog Jul 2012 #27
You probably responded on a computer with at least some components made in China FarCenter Jul 2012 #37
So you've given up on your argument that government doesn't do anything useful for business? CreekDog Jul 2012 #38
I never argued that government doesn't do anything useful for business. FarCenter Jul 2012 #39
who has made the argument that gov't must do everything it currently does for business to prosper? CreekDog Jul 2012 #41
Please tell me the history of how Cerridwen Jul 2012 #40
Please tell me what fraction of government expenditures have gone to such useful endeavors? FarCenter Jul 2012 #43
You mean how much government Cerridwen Jul 2012 #47
Where does all that DoD and DoE $$ end up? n/t Egalitarian Thug Jul 2012 #44
Davis Monthan AFB for example? FarCenter Jul 2012 #48
The largest and second largest (HSA may have become #2) sources of corporate welfare. n/t Egalitarian Thug Jul 2012 #63
This whole issue is about a substantial as a smoke ring on a breezy day. cherokeeprogressive Jul 2012 #26
Who suffers? We all suffer, and here's why: phantom power Jul 2012 #28
yes- Bluerthanblue Jul 2012 #33
Your analysis is spot on! KansDem Jul 2012 #35
I ran across an FB group today who is saying that -AND- TTE, PO says they did nothing. patrice Jul 2012 #29
I'm a small business owner, and I agree completely!! progressivebydesign Jul 2012 #30
Demand Side Economics is actually the OPPOSITE of saying the business owner's work means nothing. patrice Jul 2012 #34
Isn't that what the "United" in Shankapotomus Jul 2012 #45
I'd like to see how businesses would do if we totally dismantled the government steve2470 Jul 2012 #49
Because police can't be everywhere, there are more private guards than police officers. FarCenter Jul 2012 #50
Give me a product and Yeah Its Spin Jul 2012 #52
Just had another thought, Yeah Its Spin Jul 2012 #55
That is a good point steve2470 Jul 2012 #53
yup...we started our upholstery business with a lot of help madrchsod Jul 2012 #54
personally, I think it was a dumb thing to say crazyjoe Jul 2012 #65
I agree with you gollygee Jul 2012 #67
A successful business cannot exist without enough paying customers to make a profit. eom Frustratedlady Jul 2012 #76
True, but... GreenMask Jul 2012 #85
the myth of the self-made man applies best to frontier prospectors. unblock Jul 2012 #78
Many like Sen. Ron Johnson of WI EC Jul 2012 #81
Here's my LTE in response to a winger letter Spike89 Jul 2012 #82
Again, today, Obama is getting HAMMERED on this... PBass Jul 2012 #86
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»There is not a single bus...»Reply #64