The Rule of the Uber-Rich Means Tyranny or Revolution
truthdig.com
truthdig.com
Meanwhile in the real world, libertarians have little political power or influence. None of the "uber-rich" in power are libertarian.
The 'middle-class' and poor have no resources and little time to counter the uber-rich. The middle class gains nothing from giving up government protection.
Therefore libertarianism is enables the uber-rich.
And btw, the Koch brothers are very much libertarians and they very much have a lot of power.
The uber-rich use the coercive political apparatus to benefit themselves. Libertarians oppose not only this corruption but also the state having that power to be exploited in the first place.
Libertarian policies lead to better outcomes for everyone, with maybe the exception of those benefiting from statist disruptions. More economic freedom leads to more wealth creation and more income mobility. Countries which have more economic freedom do better than restrictive economies. Countries which free up their economies see faster growth, and vice versa.
Moreover, the worst industries for consumers are the most regulated and otherwise distorted industries in the US economy: medical, financial, educational, etc.
The Koch brothers do support libertarian institutions but they are far from the most ideological or principled libertarians. The Koch brothers are not politicians, and them having some indirect political power has not resulted in significant libertarian policies. The lack of libertarian policy at every turn is all the evidence necessary that libertarians have little political power.
I'm now going to copy some Reddit comments I've made regarding the power of market economies and the alternatives. Be aware these are responses to other people.
On the Statistical Arguments for Statism -----
> According to the OECD database, countries with strong economic regulation in mature capitalism markets perform best with regards to poverty
I'm couldn't find very recent OECD poverty stats and I'm not sure what that source is referencing, but I think PPP is a good analogue.
Well, I guess if you define "strong economic regulation" as "economic freedom" you could say they correlate: [Chart](https://i.imgur.com/vDCHsfn.png)
Sources:
- https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=CPL - https://www.heritage.org/index/excel/2018/index2018_data.xls
I made the chart in Google Sheets. And yes, I corrected the Economic Freedom rank for only OECD countries.
> Countries with small governments don't clearly win in life span
Is this adjusted for the different definitions of infant mortality across different countries? Regardless, it also correlates with economic freedom: [Chart](https://imgur.com/AMmDl3g.png)
Sources:
- https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/... - https://www.heritage.org/index/excel/2018/index2018_data.xls
> Education
Education could be done a lot better in the US, that's for sure. Too bad it's controlled entirely by governments.
> Safety
The data you linked was missing a lot of countries so I'm not sure how well it actually goes, but with the data I had, it correlates too: [Chart](https://imgur.com/KXxAzLu.png)
Sources:
- https://www.numbeo.com/crime/rankings_by_country.jsp?title=2... - https://www.heritage.org/index/excel/2018/index2018_data.xls
I have a spreadsheet with all of the data and charts if you really want to see it.
On the Market Failures of Common Industries ---------
> i would say the extreme privatization of medical services along with the way insurance systems work in america is overall detrimental to americans.
Medical is the most socialized industry in the country.
> a bill of ~60k ... honestly unacceptable to me that people can go bankrupt over something that is so absolutely outside of anybody’s control
Things outside of people's control is the exact purpose for insurance of all kinds. Car insurance, home insurance, liability insurance, renters insurance all exist to cover the unpredictability of the world. Accidents covered by all of these insurances can affect people's lives as much if not more than medical emergencies. Should every insurance be nationalized?
> i really don’t know what kind of legislation is involved in regulating the medical sector (but it seems to be minimal)
Wow, you couldn't be more wrong. The only sector regulated more than medical is _maybe_ the financial sector, but even that is a stretch.
> i don’t know if the problem lies within the market or the government
The government causes issues with the medical sector in many ways:
- During WWII, the federal government froze wages. For companies to attract workers, they started providing other benefits, like medical insurance. This began the linkage of medical insurance to employment. - Medicare and medicaid dump money into the medical sector. This causes prices to inflate. - Companies get a tax benefit for providing medical insurance, whereas individuals do not. - Companies are mandated to provide medical insurance if they're of a certain size - Getting FDA approval for a drug or medical device is required for it to be used legally. Getting approval is a long and costly process, driving up the price at which drug and device makers must sell it to break even, let alone make a profit. It also slows down the rate of innovation. - Patent laws give drug companies temporary monopolies on producing certain drugs. This results in higher prices due to zero competition. It also slows down innovation because using new drug technology requires licensing it from the monopoly. - People are not allowed to use drugs if they do not have a prescription. - Marijuana is illegal because of the stupid drug war - Insurance companies can't compete directly across state lines - Insurance companies are mandated by the federal government to cover certain things - Government diet policies pushed for low-fat and high-carb foods, making the obesity epidemic worse - Government subsidizes corn and sugar production, making the obesity epidemic worse - Medical licensure is a government-granted monopoly, and they artificially limit the supply of medical professionals
And many, many more
> i haven’t seen one persuasive, reasonable argument against socialized healthcare yet
One argument is "can the federal government do it right?" The government fucked up medicare, they fucked up medicaid, they fucked up Obamacare. I don't trust them to do single-payer right, nor do I trust them to do an NHS-like service correctly. I think states should be able to experiment with that kind of thing if they want, then at least people have a choice.
Another argument is that the free market can do it better. Market-based systems like France and Switzerland (while still involving mandates) work well. If we "reset" the system to enable competition and reduce rent-seeking and bureaucracy, I am confident it would be waaay better than the current system and would be better than "socialized" systems as well.
A third argument is that the _best_ care in the world is in the USA, and that's because companies have the incentives of the market to research and innovate new treatments, and that medical professionals are rewarded for good work.
Do I think that single-payer would be better than our current system? Probably. But I'm also confident that a free-market based system would be even better.
---
> the huge amount of government subsidies for education actually drives up the price for everybody, so that’s not a capitalism issue
Correct.
> the amount of total student debt is insane. it’s not a healthy long term system.
Thanks, government. Yes, we should _right now_ stop guaranteeing student loans, stop giving out federal grants, and provide a way for those with an enormous amount of debt to become successful. People should take gap years after high-school, and go to trade schools or community college more. There are tons of opportunities for people who go to college, but it's not right for everyone, let alone jumping in right after high school.
On the idea of Capitalism as an Outdated System unfit for the First World --------
> though, it did also cause that problem
One could make an argument that government subsidization of roads resulted in urban sprawl and general lack of population density, which resulted in a ton of transportation being done with cars, the least efficient form of transportation.
Another argument one could make is that restrictions on nuclear power have had a disastrous effect on emissions. If nuclear power was more widespread, electricity would be cheaper (an economic boon) and much, much cleaner.
> But it is increasingly proving to be inadequate to address the problems of first world nations.
The market economy created first-world nations.
- Countries which are more free economically are more prosperous compared to similar countries which are less free - Countries which free up their economies are more prosperous afterwards - Countries which restrict their economies are less prosperous afterwards - Industries which are more free have more innovation and are more consumer-friendly
Free trade is well-known by every version of economics to be a huge boon for every country involved.
> The poor are poorer & account for a larger percentage of the US population as compared to 30 years ago.
Increasing or stagnating poverty is a result of bad government policy including the drug war and the welfare gap.
> money in politics, sophisticated AI in sales, marketing, & advertising, unprecedented range of automation, & radically diversified/global scale business means that the consumer has simply lost any power in the market in all but the most extreme cases
Citation needed. Also, what kind of policy would you propose to "fix" this without having drastic damaging unforeseen consequences?
> Highly organized & well funded corporations, organizations, & industries have power in the modern day (both through technology and through politics) that they could have never dreamed of just a few decades ago.
The amount of power an organization can have through politics is a function of the amount of power the government has. Technology works both ways: it allows organizations to have more power but in the same proportion if not more allows for individuals to have more power. See: the printing press.
> That's why I believe that smart regulation on business is extremely important in the modern day.
Corporatism and cronyism is a blight. Rent-seeking and regulatory capture are widespread, and the only way of getting rid of them is to reduce the power of the government in those areas.
> I also believe that it's imperative that we start exploring new economic models, in search of something better than capitalism
Like what? The economic calculation problem is unlikely to go away.
> it might already be showing its cracks
The state creates those cracks by continuously pounding the market with regulation and other distortion factors.
Ah yes because the _impoverished_ Democrats are fighting for the common man! It's only with the current administration that the "uber-rich" have taken over.
Give me a break. Partisan hacks are ruining political discourse, and framing everything as the end of the world isn't helping either.
The inability of the left to interpret the actions of the right as anything but _evil_ only makes people perceive them as more out-of-touch and pretentious. Studies have shown that rightists (for lack of a better term) are more analytical and understand the positions of the opposition better than those on the left.
[1]: https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/liberals-conserva... [2]: https://theindependentwhig.com/haidt-passages/haidt/conserva...
Rightists are more analytical
[3]: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-28/study-of-... [4]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322862039_Cognitive...
> Democrats/liberals measure as somewhat more analytical than Republicans/conservatives