Guest Posted December 30, 2015 Report Share Posted December 30, 2015 TFP, It might help your case if you gave more than cryptic single line commentaries. I was all ready to hear what your reasoning was. But you didn't give any. At least Lehi gave some reasoning. All you said is "You're wrong." When he challenged you, all you did was get huffy. No it's not. How many times do you want to go back and forth on this? Yes it is. No it's not. Yes it is. No it's not. Does whoever get's the last one in win? How does this help anyone standing on the sidelines to understand your position? I'm open to hearing your case. But all you've done is stated your position. If that's all you wanted to do, then why get upset when someone disagrees? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted December 30, 2015 Report Share Posted December 30, 2015 (edited) TFP, It might help your case if you gave more than cryptic single line commentaries. And it might help you to develop a sense of humor. As to my "real" answer, I believe estradling and eowyn covered it nicely. Edit: P.S. Who was upset? Edited December 30, 2015 by The Folk Prophet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 30, 2015 Report Share Posted December 30, 2015 If you say so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted December 30, 2015 Report Share Posted December 30, 2015 If you say so. If I say so what? That I was joking around and you seemed to miss that? Or that estradling and eowyn covered my thoughts on the matter? 'Cause I'm pretty sure that...yeah...my say so is about all that's needed to back those two ideas up. Now if you choose to disbelieve me, that's up to you. But I'm not sure why you're being contentious about it, or even why you're interjecting yourself into the mix to do nothing more than, apparently, try and cut me down a notch or two for some strange reason. *shrug* Oh well. That's your biz I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 30, 2015 Report Share Posted December 30, 2015 (edited) Yup. EDIT: Who's being contentious? I thought I was being agreeable. Edited December 30, 2015 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted December 30, 2015 Report Share Posted December 30, 2015 I thought I was being agreeable. Then I guess we're both misreading each other. Just so we're clear, my point (cryptic as it was) was that providing proof is difficult at best and it's not particularly useful to go back and forth with "uh huh", "nuh uh". As for Lehi's so-called reasoning, he states that supply-and-demand is always in control, but then proceeds to declare it rigged. Were it of more worth to me to debate the matter, I would have. I certainly wasn't upset at him. What does upset me is someone else sticking their nose in and reprimanding me out of nowhere -- which, imo, does not come across as very agreeable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeSellers Posted December 30, 2015 Report Share Posted December 30, 2015 Um...Hitler... Invoking Godwin's law. And yours?Having studied economics and praxeology as a major part of my degrees (B.S. & MBA), and having studied them informally for four decades, my evidence is too detailed for a message board. However, simple logic will suffice: No one pays more for anything than what he values that thing's use compared to all other options and alternatives. You don't buy tomatoes at $40/lb because there are too many other things you could do with the $38.40 in excess of the tomatoes' worth to you. You'd buy lettuce and red cabbage first. In the case of drugs, the person is convinced that the drug is necessary to his happiness and health. Therefore he pays the $3.20/pill: his doctor has told him he "needs" it. He values the expected health benefits more than anything else he could spend the money on. If the drug company would charge, say &12.90 or $1290 per pill, the patient might reconsider. In such a case, the pharmacy would either have to wait until someone else is willing to pay, or lower the price until someone is willing to pay. As I said in both of the earlier posts, this works perfectly only in a free market, and this market is far from free: too much government interference. But even in the distorted market we have, people still must choose to pay the price of the pills or not. And, if the price is too high, they make other choices. Not even government-empowered monopolies can charge anything they like, unless, as is with the case of O'bamadon'tcare, the state uses its lethal power to compel people to buy things they don't want or need. So far, that is no tthe case in this example. Lehi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted December 30, 2015 Report Share Posted December 30, 2015 (edited) Invoking Godwin's law. Yes! No one pays more for anything than what he values that thing's use compared to all other options and alternatives. You don't buy tomatoes at $40/lb because there are too many other things you could do with the $38.40 in excess of the tomatoes' worth to you. You'd buy lettuce and red cabbage first. This is not true. One might well pay more if one is motivated for whatever reason to do so. There are a myriad of reasons one might be motivated to do so -- not the least of which is government interference. In the case of drugs, the person is convinced that the drug is necessary to his happiness and health. Therefore he pays the $3.20/pill: his doctor has told him he "needs" it. He values the expected health benefits more than anything else he could spend the money on. If the drug company would charge, say &12.90 or $1290 per pill, the patient might reconsider. In such a case, the pharmacy would either have to wait until someone else is willing to pay, or lower the price until someone is willing to pay. Except...as has been pointed out...there are interfering variables such as insurance, government programs, and a host of other things that skew the matter. As I said in both of the earlier posts, this works perfectly only in a free market, and this market is far from free: too much government interference. But even in the distorted market we have, people still must choose to pay the price of the pills or not. And, if the price is too high, they make other choices. Not even government-empowered monopolies can charge anything they like, unless, as is with the case of O'bamadon'tcare, the state uses its lethal power to compel people to buy things they don't want or need. So far, that is no tthe case in this example. I'm confused. You argue that it's always all about supply and demand but then this entirely contradicts than and, basically, is my point. ??? Edited December 30, 2015 by The Folk Prophet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 30, 2015 Report Share Posted December 30, 2015 MBA Ah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeSellers Posted December 30, 2015 Report Share Posted December 30, 2015 (edited) One might well pay more if one is motivated for whatever reason to do so. There are a myriad of reasons one might be motivated to do so -- not the least of which is government interference.You agree, then, that if a person is motivated to pay a high price for something, say gasoline while scaping a hurricane (after foolishly not preparing when there was time with $2.00 gas), he will spend whatever it takes. But he's not buying "gas" — he's buying "safety". It's the same with tomatoes or drugs: he's not buying "tomatoes" he's buying "a way to impress the boss" or "drugs", he's buying health. Except...as has been pointed out...there are interfering variables such as insurance, government programs, and a host of other things that skew the matter.Indeed. I pointed that out in the first post. I'm confused. You argue that it's always all about supply and demand but then this entirely contradicts than and, basically, is my point. ???Sorry you're confused. People value their health over most everything else. That's why the demand for drugs is so high. "The price curve is the demand curve." It's an old saying that means as long as we can keep the demand up, we can raise the price. That's why lobbyists exist (and not just for Big Pharma): if they can get the government to restrict supply by imposing licensing and other hurdles to production and distribution, and they can convince people that only Prestonite will cure their Hopslingifitis, then they artificially increase demand and depress supply, and the price goes up. But even in the worst case, where a drug is extremely costly (or appears so to people who don't "need" it), the patient will always make a cost/benefit analysis (although perhaps only superficially) and compare the promised benefit to the cost in terms of rent of meals. If the benefit, as the patient sees it, it higher than the cost, he'll pay it. If not, he will forego the drug and seek alternatives, even it that alternative is dying. Drug companies must take this into account when they price their products. However, most people, as pointed out elsewhere, do not pay the price of their drugs: the insurance company does. So the incentive to price the drug "correctly" is overshadowed by the fact that the patient doesn't pay, and has no incentive of his own to even consider the cost. Which means that the Pharmaceutical companies can set (nearly) any price they choose all because government makes it easy for them. (So-called health insurance reuslted from goverenmental interference in the labor market during WWII — it's just another example of "unintended" consequences.) Lehi Edited December 30, 2015 by LeSellers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 30, 2015 Report Share Posted December 30, 2015 (edited) Then I guess we're both misreading each other. Just so we're clear, my point (cryptic as it was) was that providing proof is difficult at best and it's not particularly useful to go back and forth with "uh huh", "nuh uh". As for Lehi's so-called reasoning, he states that supply-and-demand is always in control, but then proceeds to declare it rigged. Were it of more worth to me to debate the matter, I would have. I certainly wasn't upset at him. What does upset me is someone else sticking their nose in and reprimanding me out of nowhere -- which, imo, does not come across as very agreeable. Well, first of all, I'm going to ask you for your forgiveness. When I'm at work (I'm home now) I only have half my brain on the forum when I do get a chance to get on. I have to wait for my software to do its run and prompt me for intermediate inputs. So, half my brain is waiting for the prompts. As such, I am unable to pick up on subtleties like irony. Now that I've had time to look at the conversation, I can see the irony. So, duh. Yes, I should have picked up on it. When you said I needed a sense of humor I thought (ok, I guess I missed something. whatever. no time. I'll just agree and move on.) Now that I've read further I realize that my "Yup" response didn't make a lot of sense either. So, if I can ask a favor, when you make such a post and I respond in this manner just send me a slightly abrasive, yet partly friendly "Uhm... Knock Knock... Carb, I was being ironic." Then I can respond with THIS. Second, I have to ask a serious question. Note that it is a question and not a complaint or a criticism. This is not the first time I've been accused of injecting myself into a conversation. Sometimes it wasn't even warranted (my comment some other times was not directed at those who accused me of such). But my question is: This is a public forum. Why is it unexpected that someone would want to enter their comments into an ongoing conversation that they had not been a participant in? I thought that was the point of a public forum. I usually welcome such in any threads I'm in. Is there some protocol I'm unaware of? As for this particular thread, I was frustrated because I often find insight from your comments and logic. I was not being afforded that luxury. So, in a way, it was actually a compliment. I WANTED to hear you expound some more. Edited December 30, 2015 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted December 30, 2015 Report Share Posted December 30, 2015 Methinks this thread gives whole new meaning to the term "cafeteria Mormon". ztodd 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted December 30, 2015 Report Share Posted December 30, 2015 Second, I have to ask a serious question. Note that it is a question and not a complaint or a criticism. This is not the first time I've been accused of injecting myself into a conversation. Sometimes it wasn't even warranted (my comment some other times was not directed at those who accused me of such). But my question is: This is a public forum. Why is it unexpected that someone would want to enter their comments into an ongoing conversation that they had not been a participant in? I thought that was the point of a public forum. I usually welcome such in any threads I'm in. Is there some protocol I'm unaware of? As for this particular thread, I was frustrated because I often find insight from your comments and logic. I was not being afforded that luxury. So, in a way, it was actually a compliment. I WANTED to hear you expound some more. My irritation did not stem from your interjecting yourself into the conversation, but from the fact that I felt reprimanded by it. If you had simply said, "Can you expound further? I'm curious" it wouldn't have bothered me in the least. If you had even debated with me on the issue it wouldn't have bothered me. Such interjection is welcome in my book. The accusations and/or reprimands, etc., are not welcome even if it's not an interjection. (Note: That's not to say that such are never appropriate. There is a time and a place, of course. But that also, is not to say, that they won't be irritating to those receiving such.) That being said, on this particular point (whether supply and demand always sets the price point or not), I'm really struggling to care about it enough to go into much detail, which is part of why I'm somewhat cryptic in my replies I suppose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted December 31, 2015 Report Share Posted December 31, 2015 (edited) You agree, then, that if a person is motivated to pay a high price for something, say gasoline while scaping a hurricane (after foolishly not preparing when there was time with $2.00 gas), he will spend whatever it takes. But he's not buying "gas" — he's buying "safety". It's the same with tomatoes or drugs: he's not buying "tomatoes" he's buying "a way to impress the boss" or "drugs", he's buying health. Sometimes we're forced to do things even if unwilling. If we want to call that "demand", then...okay. When I pay extra taxes for not having Obamacare forced insurance I'm "buying" staying out of jail. Sure. Sure...when the exact same drug one can get for $4 in India costs $1000 in the US, I suppose I'd be "buying" that to not move to India (except that my insurance company is buying that, and my rates are going up, which I have to buy anyway because the government forces me to...so really, I'm still buying either staying out of jail or not moving to India). But this all seems a bit of a stretch on the word "demand" to me. Seems like a nice, tidy way to economists to express college theories in a smart sounding way...but when the government forces you to buy something regardless of cost...we start doing some acrobatics to get there. People value their health over most everything else. Um...no. People value McDonalds over their health. Smoking. Alcohol. Recreational drugs. Dangerous recreation activities. Sex. And on and on. Health is a bit down the list...until they screw it up of course...then it gets to be higher priority (for some people sometime). But I digress and am off topic. "The price curve is the demand curve." It's an old saying that means as long as we can keep the demand up, we can raise the price. That's why lobbyists exist (and not just for Big Pharma): if they can get the government to restrict supply by imposing licensing and other hurdles to production and distribution, and they can convince people that only Prestonite will cure their Hopslingifitis, then they artificially increase demand and depress supply, and the price goes up.But even in the worst case, where a drug is extremely costly (or appears so to people who don't "need" it), the patient will always make a cost/benefit analysis (although perhaps only superficially) and compare the promised benefit to the cost in terms of rent of meals. If the benefit, as the patient sees it, it higher than the cost, he'll pay it. If not, he will forego the drug and seek alternatives, even it that alternative is dying. Drug companies must take this into account when they price their products. However, most people, as pointed out elsewhere, do not pay the price of their drugs: the insurance company does. So the incentive to price the drug "correctly" is overshadowed by the fact that the patient doesn't pay, and has no incentive of his own to even consider the cost. Which means that the Pharmaceutical companies can set (nearly) any price they choose all because government makes it easy for them. (So-called health insurance reuslted from goverenmental interference in the labor market during WWII — it's just another example of "unintended" consequences.) I understand all this. But there are way too many variables being ignored that play into the matter that, once again, require linguistic stretches to get there. For example, a pair of slippers at the hospital ends up costing something around several hundred dollars. The demand, of course, is the things the hospital provides that one cannot get elsewhere (we'll just ignore the fact that, for the most part, such services are forcibly illegal elsewhere in many cases (not that that's a bad thing, but...)). The pricey slippers is a tag-on that has little to do with the original demand, but it is an opportunity to abuse. You demand the hospital, the hospital demands the use of their slippers. Can't bring your own. Can't buy the same thing on ebay and bring them in. You end up having to take the price because of the ulterior demand. Is there a shortage of supply of slippers? Is there a huge demand? Do slippers have any cause at all to cost hundreds of dollars...ever? And so it goes, on and on. Advantage is taken when it can be, regardless of demand. Can we twist the meaning and usage to fit it nicely into "supply-and-demand"? Sure...but it ends up really having no meaning. Okay...I've spent enough time on this. I really (and I don't mean this as directed to you) don't care that much. I was just interjecting a thought. It's not important to me. So we'll leave it here. If you want to expound more on the matter, feel free. I acquiesce. Edited December 31, 2015 by The Folk Prophet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeSellers Posted December 31, 2015 Report Share Posted December 31, 2015 Sometimes we're forced to do things even if unwilling. If we want to call that "demand", then...okay. When I pay extra taxes for not having Obamacare forced insurance I'm "buying" staying out of jail. Sure.Ah, I see the problem. I'm using "demand" in its economic sense, not a general way. Demand is, according to Economics, is a desire for a good or service backed up with the ability to pay the cost for it. Formally: the desire to purchase, coupled with the power to do so. the quantity of goods that buyers will take at a particular price. Lehi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted December 31, 2015 Report Share Posted December 31, 2015 Demand is, according to Economics, is a desire for a good or service backed up with the ability to pay the cost for it. I had neither of these things for the hospital slippers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JojoBag Posted December 31, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 31, 2015 I've been eating cereal for 35 years, and for some reason I'm still alive and going strong. I don't think processed foods are the major issue in the word of wisdom. I wonder how many times people with this philosophy have shortened their lives, or degraded the quality of their lives by am improper diet. Sure, there are people who smoke without getting cancer, or eat processed foods without having a heart attack. However, what if you are able to extend your life another two or three years by staying away from the garbage? I wished my father had been around for another two or three years. I agree that processed foods are not the major issue, but then my OP wasn't about processed foods. It's about conspiring men in the last days and their deceptive practices to make money. LeSellers 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 31, 2015 Report Share Posted December 31, 2015 I concur with TFP when I say that often medical "services" are often forced upon a person rather than desired. But this is due to government intervention. I believe where both your arguments intersect is where Government sticks their fingers into commerce and it messes with the laws of supply and demand and destroys all common sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightSG Posted December 31, 2015 Report Share Posted December 31, 2015 The demand, of course, is the things the hospital provides that one cannot get elsewhere (we'll just ignore the fact that, for the most part, such services are forcibly illegal elsewhere in many cases (not that that's a bad thing, but...)). IMO, it is a bad thing. As long as I'm fully aware that he has no training, no malpractice insurance, and no significant assets to pay a claim, I don't think the WalMart greeter should be prohibited from selling me medical services. I'm fine with government endorsing standards and requiring those who don't meet them to disclose that fact, but if I knowingly decide to let a high school dropout with Parkinson's do my surgery, that's my business and my risk to take. LeSellers and JojoBag 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted December 31, 2015 Report Share Posted December 31, 2015 IMO, it is a bad thing. As long as I'm fully aware that he has no training, no malpractice insurance, and no significant assets to pay a claim, I don't think the WalMart greeter should be prohibited from selling me medical services. I'm fine with government endorsing standards and requiring those who don't meet them to disclose that fact, but if I knowingly decide to let a high school dropout with Parkinson's do my surgery, that's my business and my risk to take. I won't go so far as to disagree that this is a viable way things could be handled. But it doesn't convince me that the government's enforcement of medical licenses to practice is "a bad thing". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeSellers Posted December 31, 2015 Report Share Posted December 31, 2015 I won't go so far as to disagree that this is a viable way things could be handled. But it doesn't convince me that the government's enforcement of medical licenses to practice is "a bad thing".Okeh, I will say it: govermnental interference in the medical world by licensing and other gimmicks is a bad thing very bad thing. Lehi NightSG 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 31, 2015 Report Share Posted December 31, 2015 (edited) Milton Friedman gave some insight into thishttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6t-R3pWrRw Edited December 31, 2015 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MormonGator Posted December 31, 2015 Report Share Posted December 31, 2015 Milton Friedman gave some insight into thishttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6t-R3pWrRwFree to Choose changed my life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 31, 2015 Report Share Posted December 31, 2015 (edited) I'd add an example from engineering that almost makes the point that Dr.Friedman made. Licensure is done by states. But the testing for such licensure is by private industry. Then there are also continuing education requirements to maintain licensure. If the states did not require licensure, there would be fewer licensed engineers. But there would also be reduced need for them. Much of the work could be done by technicians as well. Only the most math intensive matters that require specialized training would be the purview of the engineer. The use of technicians, then, would reduce overall costs of projects, raising the standard of living of those who use the product. Edited December 31, 2015 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeSellers Posted December 31, 2015 Report Share Posted December 31, 2015 The use of technicians, then, would reduce overall costs of projects, raising the standard of living of those who use the product.Even more, it would increase the output of engineers so there would be more products (roads, dams, computers, what-have-you) and we would all have our standards of living raised. Licensure reduces output, increases costs, and decreases utility. It's what some have called "professional birth control". Lehi NightSG 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.