Pay me like a French doctor. You know you want to.

[PL198]

Uh.. I don't believe I labeled myself anything. I'm part of the everyone should stop breathing my air club. Sorry, I'm not going to ask you to join.


Also burning conservative newspapers... next your going to say that God is not dead is a true story bro.

Nah I was lying. http://townhall.com/columnists/todd...ervative-student-newspaper-n1825072/page/full

Oh wait I wasn't

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Nephronlearner]

Hey how are Italy, Portugal, Greece, Spain and Ireland doing? Oh yeah, that's right. Are you really going to tell me everything is all good over there? You realize the EU literally banned the word bankrupt, right? Like they banned a word, because it had such a negative connotation and was being used so frequently. Carry on though, your system is great.

I have heard that word plenty of times. Then I googled (something that some people should do more) and guess what... there are roughly 3 proper articles, all 3 coming from biased, sensationalist, right-wing British papers (aka Daily Fail) - and even they don't claim the word was banned, but rather someone suggested that using another word might be better.

Also, I did NOT say that the system in any place was perfect or awful. I only responded to some inaccurate statements written on this thread.

Italy, Portugal, Spain, Ireland... let's see: their life expectancy is generally better than in the US, infant mortality lower etc.
I could also ask you how is Mississippi doing? But I listened to my own advice - and googled and look what I found:
http://hechingerreport.org/content/...-as-lithuanias-why-are-we-ok-with-that_14077/

And I am still not saying that American system is awful or that European system is better. I am however saying that you don't seem to know enough about the system over here to make such black and white statements.
And no, watching Fox News does not equal understanding the system (those people actually wrongly labelled European countries on the map).

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Ok, settle down and let the grown ups talk. The America caused global recession? k bud... due to the recession being spread out? Do you understand anything about economics? America's plight is due to the fact that the average American is a lazy piece of crap. But hey, we don't have to ban the word bankrupt, so that's probably significant. Carry on though, with all your freedom and choice.

America's plight was caused by the housing market and an out of control reduced tax bracket that amounted to over 5-7 trillion dollars in deficit. And no, those words aren't banned, which is why I entirely avoided your butt plug of an argument. Please proceed with your diarrhea of the mouth/... fingers.


Let me in the mean time fish out some pamphlets to convince you that your breathing is economically unfavorable.

 

[BestDoctorEver]

We don't need to turn this thread into liberal vs. conservative because all you guys/gals are going to do is to recite talking points of MSNBC and/or FOX NEWS... Seen it before!

 

[KinasePro]

Kinasepro, your entire argument detracts from the fact that the Republican fan base is an entirely populist one filled with ill equipped losers who's only hope is for a theocratic instillation that constantly feeds them good old pro-american opioids.

I'm not a republican (though I generally agree with more of them than dems) and I agree that the republican base has a lot of mouth-breathers in it. But honestly the "base" from both sides is similarly pathetic. I have hard time finding a normal set of chromosomes on both the Young Turks and Glenn Beck show.

My point is that conservatism is the more difficult viewpoint to debate from on the national stage in the current political climate. Arguing for less government and less regulation is inherently abstract, and it's easy for progressives to say "you're just a 1%er shill, etc..," ignore discussing important trade-offs, and completely derail meaningful debate.

 

[BestDoctorEver]

....

 

[syma]

Oh dear. There are problems with both systems. But knowing that if something was to happen ATP me and that it won't bankrupt me, is why I don't mind paying into a system.

When working full time I had private insurance, so unlike in Canada, Europe's system allows you to "skip the line" and see the same provider privately.

I do believe that health care should be a basic human right, but that's the socialist in me. The NHS isn't perfect, but especially now as a student and self employed the system works for me.

 

[qwerty89]

I'll say it once and I'll say it again. If you want to do IM (besides very specific subspecialties), Peds, and Family Med, med school is not worth it. PA and NP have a much greater ROI.

Worth reposting.

"We found that, for over half of woman doctors in our data, the NPV of becoming a primary-care physician was less than the NPV of becoming a physician assistant. In contrast, the vast majority of male primary-care physicians earned an NPV greater than the NPV earned by a male PA. That is, while the vast majority of male doctors are financially better off for having become a doctor, the median female primary care physician would have been financially better off becoming a PA."

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...ool-a-worthwhile-investment-for-women/260051/

 

[Nidor]

.

 

[wjs010]

I feel like we're treating health care as a basic human right either way. Even in the US an ER is forced to treat you no matter what. This means that if you don't have insurance you're basically forcing the rest of society to bare the costs of your care. (sure an ER will only go so far, but I would argue that it's allot more expensive to have a diabetic come to the ER dozens of times then to just have him see a PCP that keeps his diabetes under control). By making everyone contribute to the system you're not making them pay for others, but for their own anticipated future care.

I'm a very big supporter of a free market system, it promotes competition and rewards the most efficiently run businesses. However, the free market has one Achilles heel, the forming of a monopoly. When a monopoly forms a company no longer has any incentive to be cheaper or better for its customers. Also, it is incredibly hard to break a monopoly.
E.g. There are 4 supermarkets in neighborhood x, all 4 compete over the same clientele so keep prices low and service high. Supermarket 3 is the best at this and puts the others out of business. At this point Supermarket 3 is the only available supermarket and can maximize profits further by raising prices and cutting service. If this happens on a big enough scale Supermarket 3 has enough excess profits to be able to lower prices (temporarily) whenever a competitor pops up and sell products even below the purchasing price.
This is why I believe a free market needs a certain from of government oversight to set the 'playing rules' and avoid a monopoly from being formed.

There where and still are many weaknesses in the global financial system. The american housing market crash exposed one in the american system and weakened the financial system to where it exposed a weakness in the European financial system, the massive debt lower income countries took on (because Greece was in the Euro together with strong economy's like Germany it was able to loan at a far lower interest rate then it would have been able to otherwise). When the cheap money stopped these lower income countries weren't able to pay allot of these loans back causing the European Debt crisis. (P.S. my bet is on the next crisis being in China, where several of its enormous state companies are being kept afloat by huge government subsidies)

This is an intelligent post

 

[circulus vitios]

Worth reposting.

"We found that, for over half of woman doctors in our data, the NPV of becoming a primary-care physician was less than the NPV of becoming a physician assistant. In contrast, the vast majority of male primary-care physicians earned an NPV greater than the NPV earned by a male PA. That is, while the vast majority of male doctors are financially better off for having become a doctor, the median female primary care physician would have been financially better off becoming a PA."

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...ool-a-worthwhile-investment-for-women/260051/

Not a surprise. Women are more likely to work part time and probably more likely to go into lower-paying specialties out of self interest or maybe the expectation that their spouse will be the breadwinner.

 

[Mad Jack]

America's plight was caused by the housing market and an out of control reduced tax bracket that amounted to over 5-7 trillion dollars in deficit. And no, those words aren't banned, which is why I entirely avoided your butt plug of an argument. Please proceed with your diarrhea of the mouth/... fingers.


Let me in the mean time fish out some pamphlets to convince you that your breathing is economically unfavorable.

You forgot war. Trillions of dollars of unnecessary war.

 

[Mad Jack]

We don't need to turn this thread into liberal vs. conservative because all you guys/gals are going to do is to recite talking points of MSNBC and/or FOX NEWS... Seen it before!

No one actually watches MSNBC dude. They're like this sad liberal parody of fox news that just can't find an audience.

 

[Mad Jack]

I'll say it once and I'll say it again. If you want to do IM (besides very specific subspecialties), Peds, and Family Med, med school is not worth it. PA and NP have a much greater ROI.

I really think this depends on how hard and where you are willing to work in IM/FP. 7 on/7 off hospitalists around here start off at a 230k/yr salary, and have those extra 7 days in which to pick up locum/per diem shifts. If you want to work your butt off, you can pick up a few extra grand doing a couple urgent care shifts or covering at other hospitals on your off week. Rural hospitalist work can pay even higher at base- 260-280k base positions are out there.

The best PA pay I've seen had been ortho spine work, roughly 60 hours a week for 160-180k salary. Average PAs working hospitalist positions start around 100k and work identical hours to the physicians. Basically, you get a 130k premium per year for your 7 years of training and 200-400k in loans. I think it's worth it.

This trend holds true for FPs as well. You can find plenty of employed FP positions that are 200k+production, but most PA positions pay 90-110k straight salary, with the occasional position offering 10-20k more for production. For 5 extra years of school, you end up with nearly double the pay. And this neglects the fact that when and if socialized medicine pay cuts hit, they're going to hit everyone- the higher up you are on the totem pole, the higher you'll be after the axe falls. If a PCP takes a 40% pay cut down the road, he's making 120k. If a PA does, he's making around 60k. Being higher up gives you a bit more of a buffer if SHTF.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

You forgot war. Trillions of dollars of unnecessary war.

I also forgot to also mention that in France you have a mandatory 35 hour work week.

So 35 hours vs 80 hours of IM = about the same rate lol

 

[Mad Jack]

I also forgot to also mention that in France you have a mandatory 35 hour work week.

So 35 hours vs 80 hours of IM = about the same rate lol

Oh yes, that too. You can pay me like a french doctor when you work me like a french doctor lol.

 

[PL198]

I feel like we're treating health care as a basic human right either way. Even in the US an ER is forced to treat you no matter what. This means that if you don't have insurance you're basically forcing the rest of society to bare the costs of your care. (sure an ER will only go so far, but I would argue that it's allot more expensive to have a diabetic come to the ER dozens of times then to just have him see a PCP that keeps his diabetes under control). By making everyone contribute to the system you're not making them pay for others, but for their own anticipated future care.

I'm a very big supporter of a free market system, it promotes competition and rewards the most efficiently run businesses. However, the free market has one Achilles heel, the forming of a monopoly. When a monopoly forms a company no longer has any incentive to be cheaper or better for its customers. Also, it is incredibly hard to break a monopoly.
E.g. There are 4 supermarkets in neighborhood x, all 4 compete over the same clientele so keep prices low and service high. Supermarket 3 is the best at this and puts the others out of business. At this point Supermarket 3 is the only available supermarket and can maximize profits further by raising prices and cutting service. If this happens on a big enough scale Supermarket 3 has enough excess profits to be able to lower prices (temporarily) whenever a competitor pops up and sell products even below the purchasing price.
This is why I believe a free market needs a certain from of government oversight to set the 'playing rules' and avoid a monopoly from being formed.

There where and still are many weaknesses in the global financial system. The american housing market crash exposed one in the american system and weakened the financial system to where it exposed a weakness in the European financial system, the massive debt lower income countries took on (because Greece was in the Euro together with strong economy's like Germany it was able to loan at a far lower interest rate then it would have been able to otherwise). When the cheap money stopped these lower income countries weren't able to pay allot of these loans back causing the European Debt crisis. (P.S. my bet is on the next crisis being in China, where several of its enormous state companies are being kept afloat by huge government subsidies)

That's not true at all. People just use this as the only thing to advise against a free market. Let's think about this objectively. If a monopoly arose in an actual free market(which the US isn't even close to), why would that be a bad thing? Their monopoly would arise simply out of superiority to their competition, and producing a better product. This would allow them to essentially have complete market control and thus set their prices. It's a reward for being great at what you are doing. This never happens in reality due to competition (and not to mention that no one in the last 200 years has seen a free-market, but that's for another time).

Talking about a free market, and monopoly among medical students is so ironic to me. Again, it doesn't actually happen, but if it did, here's a parallel:
Pretend you got a 280 on step 1, so obviously you kicked a**, took names and are like " give me a boss job because I'm a boss." right? Damn right, because you've earned it. Except you did too well on step 1, so we are going to knock your score down to 230, so that you play nice with all the people who couldn't do as well as you. Sick idea, right? Oh wait no, because it's not like you magically got a 280(probability wise, though I guess it's possible), you worked for it! So why should your score be reduced so that others who couldn't do as well as you would look more favorable and receive better outcomes? Good question.

Now let's look at doing well on step 1 as a relatively free market. There aren't many obstructions preventing from one student prospering while another does so successfully. Because of this, we don't see a monopoly on scores where a few people get 280+ and then a huge drop off where the next group is at 250. The more and more we give students the freedom to study and they wish, the more we allow them to score as high as possible. However the more we restrict and specify their studying, they are subject to the quality of the plan itself. (Hence why I feel schools shouldn't teach to the boards)

The reason a free market never exhibits monopolies is that low barriers of entry prevent any company from gaining a dominant enough market share for a significant amount of time to be able to sustain losses to prevent all competitors in their industry from prospering. As we intervene more, and set incredibly high standards such as EPA requirements, it becomes much much harder for a new businesses to start, and thus there is less competition. When you have less competition, it's obviously easier to have a monopoly for a plethora of reasons.

A natural monopoly like your example never happens in a free market. I don't deny that economies of scale exist, however without huge imposing regulations that prevent new businesses from operating/forming, it's not nearly as powerful of an impact as you suggest. There are also costs to being a large company, it's not all just rainbows and pots of gold.

Think about it this way, if tomorrow the government put out some regulation that required 500 million dollars of changes to be made to a companies facilities for them to stay legally operating, how many companies in each industry would be able to do so? Now think about the human spirit and how competitive people are, and how infrequently one group of people is going to maintain a significant enough advantage over another to remove their lively-hood.

This is pretty common economic theory. I just don't understand where this sentiment comes from. Not to mention why people link monopoly with being a bad thing( if it's earned naturally, not by back-room deals with the government). If someone is amazingly good at what they do, you bet they deserve to run the show. The problem is when the government does stuff that allows a company to run the show, that hasn't done anything extraordinary. If there was such a thing as a natural monopoly, it would be well-deserved. However, there still isn't. Saying it would be bad, is like looking at a surgeon and saying, "oh I don't care how hard you work, how smart you are, etc, you make enough money so we're just going to cap you. How would that go?

 

[Nidor]

.

 

[PL198]

I don't advise against a free market, I say that a free market is a transitional state that needs external regulations to stop it from evolving to a monopoly.


"Let's think about this objectively. If a monopoly arose in an actual free market(which the US isn't even close to), why would that be a bad thing? Their monopoly would arise simply out of superiority to their competition, and producing a better product. This would allow them to essentially have complete market control and thus set their prices. It's a reward for being great at what you are doing."

Their reward for being great is being market leader. Establishing a monopoly would replace the market and take away any incentive to continue to be great/improving.

"Pretend you got a 280 on step 1, so obviously you kicked a**, took names and are like " give me a boss job because I'm a boss." right? Damn right, because you've earned it. Except you did too well on step 1, so we are going to knock your score down to 230, so that you play nice with all the people who couldn't do as well as you. Sick idea, right? Oh wait no, because it's not like you magically got a 280(probability wise, though I guess it's possible), you worked for it! So why should your score be reduced so that others who couldn't do as well as you would look more favorable and receive better outcomes? Good question."

This parallel would only make sense if your 280 score allowed you to take up ALL of the residency spots, because then you would replace the market (lots of students trying to get a spot) with a monopoly.

"Now let's look at doing well on step 1 as a relatively free market. There aren't many obstructions preventing from one student prospering while another does so successfully. Because of this, we don't see a monopoly on scores where a few people get 280+ and then a huge drop off where the next group is at 250. The more and more we give students the freedom to study and they wish, the more we allow them to score as high as possible. However the more we restrict and specify their studying, they are subject to the quality of the plan itself. (Hence why I feel schools shouldn't teach to the boards)"

STEP 1 is not a market very subject to a monopoly, take another example though, the healthcare of a city. One group of hospitals can provide the best and cheapest care, putting all their competition out of business, after that they can easily raise their prices and lower their nurse/patient ratio, because what are you gone do, go somewhere else? (this is also why a hospital would pay above market price to buy out competing practices in the same area)

"The reason a free market never exhibits monopolies is that low barriers of entry prevent any company from gaining a dominant enough market share for a significant amount of time to be able to sustain losses to prevent all competitors in their industry from prospering. As we intervene more, and set incredibly high standards such as EPA requirements, it becomes much much harder for a new businesses to start, and thus there is less competition. When you have less competition, it's obviously easier to have a monopoly for a plethora of reasons.

A natural monopoly like your example never happens in a free market. I don't deny that economies of scale exist, however without huge imposing regulations that prevent new businesses from operating/forming, it's not nearly as powerful of an impact as you suggest. There are also costs to being a large company, it's not all just rainbows and pots of gold.

Think about it this way, if tomorrow the government put out some regulation that required 500 million dollars of changes to be made to a companies facilities for them to stay legally operating, how many companies in each industry would be able to do so? Now think about the human spirit and how competitive people are, and how infrequently one group of people is going to maintain a significant enough advantage over another to remove their lively-hood. "

You make a couple good points in this part. Do also consider that bigger companies have the resources to have an accounting department (=minimizing taxes paid), lobbying department (=influencing regulations to where they are more favorable to them and increase barriers to competition) etc. It is a fine balance indeed between over regulating and leaving a market to free (like what we saw in 19th century England, this increased the net wealth of the country but actually decreased life expectancy until the government intervened and taxed some of the extra wealth and used it to fund sewage/better roads/schooling/etc.)
Don't get me wrong, I am completely opposed to to much government involvement (it creates weaknesses because companies aren't forced to be efficient, hence me mentioning China as a potential weakness in the global financial system).

"This is pretty common economic theory. I just don't understand where this sentiment comes from. Not to mention why people link monopoly with being a bad thing( if it's earned naturally, not by back-room deals with the government). If someone is amazingly good at what they do, you bet they deserve to run the show. The problem is when the government does stuff that allows a company to run the show, that hasn't done anything extraordinary. If there was such a thing as a natural monopoly, it would be well-deserved. However, there still isn't. Saying it would be bad, is like looking at a surgeon and saying, "oh I don't care how hard you work, how smart you are, etc, you make enough money so we're just going to cap you. How would that go? "

Because once a monopoly is achieved they have absolutely no incentive to continue innovating or being good.

Ancient Egypt for the first part of its recorded history consisted of several different kingdoms. These kingdoms where constantly competing and all of Egypt quickly evolved and became more efficient. One of the kingdoms evolved faster and took over the others, after that we have thousands of years of stability and prestige projects (the pyramids), while progress virtually stopped.

I agree with you on all facets except for your sentiment of the whole "boom and bust" if I may, basically regarding a company thriving, putting competitors out of business and then stagnating is a bad thing. I look at it as a reward for being great. If in a free market(or even relatively free, because if we deal in absolutes, we can't be that practical I guess), one company does that well, it's because they are great and I feel they deserve to be rewarded for such. I don't think a company has a societal obligation to continue to provide developments for society, and if they've earned the ability the be stagnant and continue to do well, that's fine by me. I think the key point here though is that if it's earned. If it's formed in some back-room handshake with a controlling body, that is a problem and something that I detest.

I agree the step comparison wasn't completely similar, however I'd look at it where if a body of students was doing a particular study method to get a high score, we aren't going to undercut them and prevent them from doing so or force them to publish how they did it. So I don't really see why we do the same thing to companies. Business isn't a "level" playing field, and making it more "level" makes nobody win IMO. It just teaches the lesser firms to continue to be lesser and screws the people actually achieving.

Sure the "boom and bust" wouldn't be ideal for society, but I don't think that's any concern of a private corporation, nor does it reflect poorly on them in my opinion.

 

[Nidor]

.

 

[PL198]

I think we might actually be quite on the same page I don't mind companies putting each other out of business, or making a profit. If one company can do something better and cheaper then another, then great, that's a net win for a country.
I agree stopping a monopoly isn't ideal, but limiting the advantages of being huge by tackling tax evasion or limiting lobbying (=modern bribing) can go a long way.

Definitely agree, especially about what you said with regards to limiting the tax evasion and limiting lobbying. I guess in my frame of mind, with less regulation, the gov't has less power so bribing isn't as useful and thus not employed. I think I feel the same way about tax evasion as well.

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

I always find myself landing in the same place on the whole free market vs regulated market (or some extreme or less extreme case of this), either way, your problem is going to be that people are inherently sh*tty. And they will use their power to be sh*tty to others whether that's through the monopoly they've built or through the power of regulation that they've been granted. Both sides are guilty of glossing this fact, borne out over and over throughout history, when arguing for their side.

"And just tell me where in the world you find these angels that are going to organize society for us? " -Milton Friedman (*who spoke harshly against socialist ideas and gov. run monopolies, but I can't find any quotes of him acknowledging the problems of private monopolies.)


*not to say there aren't any, I just haven't seen it yet.

 

[Mad Jack]

I don't advise against a free market, I say that a free market is a transitional state that needs external regulations to stop it from evolving to a monopoly.


"Let's think about this objectively. If a monopoly arose in an actual free market(which the US isn't even close to), why would that be a bad thing? Their monopoly would arise simply out of superiority to their competition, and producing a better product. This would allow them to essentially have complete market control and thus set their prices. It's a reward for being great at what you are doing."

Their reward for being great is being market leader. Establishing a monopoly would replace the market and take away any incentive to continue to be great/improving.

"Pretend you got a 280 on step 1, so obviously you kicked a**, took names and are like " give me a boss job because I'm a boss." right? Damn right, because you've earned it. Except you did too well on step 1, so we are going to knock your score down to 230, so that you play nice with all the people who couldn't do as well as you. Sick idea, right? Oh wait no, because it's not like you magically got a 280(probability wise, though I guess it's possible), you worked for it! So why should your score be reduced so that others who couldn't do as well as you would look more favorable and receive better outcomes? Good question."

This parallel would only make sense if your 280 score allowed you to take up ALL of the residency spots, because then you would replace the market (lots of students trying to get a spot) with a monopoly.

"Now let's look at doing well on step 1 as a relatively free market. There aren't many obstructions preventing from one student prospering while another does so successfully. Because of this, we don't see a monopoly on scores where a few people get 280+ and then a huge drop off where the next group is at 250. The more and more we give students the freedom to study and they wish, the more we allow them to score as high as possible. However the more we restrict and specify their studying, they are subject to the quality of the plan itself. (Hence why I feel schools shouldn't teach to the boards)"

STEP 1 is not a market very subject to a monopoly, take another example though, the healthcare of a city. One group of hospitals can provide the best and cheapest care, putting all their competition out of business, after that they can easily raise their prices and lower their nurse/patient ratio, because what are you gone do, go somewhere else? (this is also why a hospital would pay above market price to buy out competing practices in the same area)

"The reason a free market never exhibits monopolies is that low barriers of entry prevent any company from gaining a dominant enough market share for a significant amount of time to be able to sustain losses to prevent all competitors in their industry from prospering. As we intervene more, and set incredibly high standards such as EPA requirements, it becomes much much harder for a new businesses to start, and thus there is less competition. When you have less competition, it's obviously easier to have a monopoly for a plethora of reasons.

A natural monopoly like your example never happens in a free market. I don't deny that economies of scale exist, however without huge imposing regulations that prevent new businesses from operating/forming, it's not nearly as powerful of an impact as you suggest. There are also costs to being a large company, it's not all just rainbows and pots of gold.

Think about it this way, if tomorrow the government put out some regulation that required 500 million dollars of changes to be made to a companies facilities for them to stay legally operating, how many companies in each industry would be able to do so? Now think about the human spirit and how competitive people are, and how infrequently one group of people is going to maintain a significant enough advantage over another to remove their lively-hood. "

You make a couple good points in this part. Do also consider that bigger companies have the resources to have an accounting department (=minimizing taxes paid), lobbying department (=influencing regulations to where they are more favorable to them and increase barriers to competition) etc. It is a fine balance indeed between over regulating and leaving a market to free (like what we saw in 19th century England, this increased the net wealth of the country but actually decreased life expectancy until the government intervened and taxed some of the extra wealth and used it to fund sewage/better roads/schooling/etc.)
Don't get me wrong, I am completely opposed to to much government involvement (it creates weaknesses because companies aren't forced to be efficient, hence me mentioning China as a potential weakness in the global financial system).

"This is pretty common economic theory. I just don't understand where this sentiment comes from. Not to mention why people link monopoly with being a bad thing( if it's earned naturally, not by back-room deals with the government). If someone is amazingly good at what they do, you bet they deserve to run the show. The problem is when the government does stuff that allows a company to run the show, that hasn't done anything extraordinary. If there was such a thing as a natural monopoly, it would be well-deserved. However, there still isn't. Saying it would be bad, is like looking at a surgeon and saying, "oh I don't care how hard you work, how smart you are, etc, you make enough money so we're just going to cap you. How would that go? "

Because once a monopoly is achieved they have absolutely no incentive to continue innovating or being good.

Ancient Egypt for the first part of its recorded history consisted of several different kingdoms. These kingdoms where constantly competing and all of Egypt quickly evolved and became more efficient. One of the kingdoms evolved faster and took over the others, after that we have thousands of years of stability and prestige projects (the pyramids), while progress virtually stopped.

You're forgetting some of the inherent issues with monopolies, such as their ability to strongarm suppliers or temporarily lower prices in one are to stifle a new competitor. Lets look at hospitals. Imagine there was a system that had a monopoly on all of the Northeast. Some docs get together and decide to start a new hospital in Boston, the only competition for 1000 miles. The monopoly tells all of its suppliers they will be dropped if they deal with this new competitor, and thus lose millions. They then contact with every private insurance company in the area for half price rates compared to the new hospital, but only do long as the insurers do not reimburse any costs whatsoever at their new competitor (they're losing money in this area, but are a monopoly so they can temporarily absorb the cost until their competitor dies), which leads to all privately insured patients going to the monopoly network rather than the better, newer competitor. Regulations exist to protect the system from games like this that were frequent in the late 19th century and would certainly occur once more.

 

[PL198]

You're forgetting some of the inherent issues with monopolies, such as their ability to strongarm suppliers or temporarily lower prices in one are to stifle a new competitor. Lets look at hospitals. Imagine there was a system that had a monopoly on all of the Northeast. Some docs get together and decide to start a new hospital in Boston, the only competition for 1000 miles. The monopoly tells all of its suppliers they will be dropped if they deal with this new competitor, and thus lose millions. They then contact with every private insurance company in the area for half price rates compared to the new hospital, but only do long as the insurers do not reimburse any costs whatsoever at their new competitor (they're losing money in this area, but are a monopoly so they can temporarily absorb the cost until their competitor dies), which leads to all privately insured patients going to the monopoly network rather than the better, newer competitor. Regulations exist to protect the system from games like this that were frequent in the late 19th century and would certainly occur once more.

If I recall correctly, we usually agree on these extra-medicine issues, but I disagree with you in this one. I think those "issues" are privileges, given to an entity for being really good at what they do. I would definitely say (as said before) that these monopolies, especially within the healthcare system, are almost entirely government derived, which would be bad. However I don't understand this general connotation that a monopoly is bad. If someone is the best plastic surgeon in LA and drives literally every other one out of business and people will wait years to have he/she do their surgery, that's not a bad thing, and the surgeon clearly has nothing to be sorry for.

Issues like you described don't arise in markets with relatively low costs of entry. A hospital is about the highest cost of entry business I can think of.

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

If I recall correctly, we usually agree on these extra-medicine issues, but I disagree with you in this one. I think those "issues" are privileges, given to an entity for being really good at what they do. I would definitely say (as said before) that these monopolies, especially within the healthcare system, are almost entirely government derived, which would be bad. However I don't understand this general connotation that a monopoly is bad. If someone is the best plastic surgeon in LA and drives literally every other one out of business and people will wait years to have he/she do their surgery, that's not a bad thing, and the surgeon clearly has nothing to be sorry for.

Issues like you described don't arise in markets with relatively low costs of entry. A hospital is about the highest cost of entry business I can think of.

Out of laziness and time restraints to study the Standard Oil debacle and use that as my example I'm gonna go real low brow and simple, albeit an accurate anecdote.

I live in the deep south, when a hurricane is on its way the major stores sell out of water bottles 3-4 days before the hurricane hits. Once a big one hits, people start to run out of water fairly quickly, the free market rewards those who planned for such events, stocked up bottled water a year or so in advance and who now have enough to sell to others who are running out or failed to plan adequately. Despite anti price gouging laws, I'll give you 1 guess what happens to the price of water and other scarce goods necessary to sustain life. You can set up your own little monopoly for a week or two in your area/neighborhood/town before water, sewage, and electricity services are all working properly again. The problem is, most people choose this time, when others are in their greatest need, to take the greatest advantage of other people. That's why we have price gouging laws in the first place, they were a response to this kind of behavior in a monopoly situation because this is the **** people do to each other.

 

[Mad Jack]

If I recall correctly, we usually agree on these extra-medicine issues, but I disagree with you in this one. I think those "issues" are privileges, given to an entity for being really good at what they do. I would definitely say (as said before) that these monopolies, especially within the healthcare system, are almost entirely government derived, which would be bad. However I don't understand this general connotation that a monopoly is bad. If someone is the best plastic surgeon in LA and drives literally every other one out of business and people will wait years to have he/she do their surgery, that's not a bad thing, and the surgeon clearly has nothing to be sorry for.

Issues like you described don't arise in markets with relatively low costs of entry. A hospital is about the highest cost of entry business I can think of.

You're missing the major point though- you reach a monopoly through high quality and success, but once you own a market, the only way for you to increase profits within that market is to gouge prices or decrease quality. One, the other, or both has occured with every minopoly in history. At this point, new, better competitors arise, but due to the level of control monopolists exert on supply chains and distribution channels, it becomes impossible for these competitors to succeed due to the existing monopoly closing off all possible suppliers and distribution channels.

You could have a better, cheaper hospital that everyone wants to go to, but if all of the surgical supply companies, drug companies, medical equipment suppliers, and payers have signed an agreement with the monopoly to not do business with you, it becomes impossible for you to operate. That is, unless you build your own supply companies and drug manufacturing facilities and hire thousands of employees to staff them, then develop your own insurance companies that will deal within your system- an incredibly high barrier to entry, which is exactly what you are trying to avoid by scrapping regulations. The only difference is who is creating the barrier to entry.

This is an argument where the best outcome lies not at one end or another, for both sides have undesirable outcomes when taken to their logical extremes.

 

[PL198]

You're missing the major point though- you reach a monopoly through high quality and success, but once you own a market, the only way for you to increase profits within that market is to gouge prices or decrease quality. One, the other, or both has occured with every minopoly in history. At this point, new, better competitors arise, but due to the level of control monopolists exert on supply chains and distribution channels, it becomes impossible for these competitors to succeed due to the existing monopoly closing off all possible suppliers and distribution channels.

You could have a better, cheaper hospital that everyone wants to go to, but if all of the surgical supply companies, drug companies, medical equipment suppliers, and payers have signed an agreement with the monopoly to not do business with you, it becomes impossible for you to operate. That is, unless you build your own supply companies and drug manufacturing facilities and hire thousands of employees to staff them, then develop your own insurance companies that will deal within your system- an incredibly high barrier to entry, which is exactly what you are trying to avoid by scrapping regulations. The only difference is who is creating the barrier to entry.

This is an argument where the best outcome lies not at one end or another, for both sides have undesirable outcomes when taken to their logical extremes.

Yes. However one group creates the high barrier through success. That's the difference. It's a reward for doing well. That company that blows everyone out, good for them! They earned it. They have 0 responsibility to society to provide "fair" prices or whatever. Are you saying they are so successful it's a bad thing? It's not right to penalize a company for doing so well that they destroy the competition, literally. That's a group that should be celebrated, not hurt. In a free market, they got there for a reason. In a world of government rule, they got there because they were on the good side of the right people. I don't see how you can find those to be similar or even in the same frame of thought. Are you really saying you can succeed to a level that is too high, and that we should limit that? If a natural monopoly existed, obviously I wouldn't enjoy paying high prices, but I'd damn sure respect the way they got to be there.

 

[PL198]

Out of laziness and time restraints to study the Union Oil debacle and use that as my example I'm gonna go real low brow and simple, albeit an accurate anecdote.

I live in the deep south, when a hurricane is on its way the major stores sell out of water bottles 3-4 days before the hurricane hits. Once a big one hits, people start to run out of water fairly quickly, the free market rewards those who planned for such events, stocked up bottled water a year or so in advance and who now have enough to sell to others who are running out or failed to plan adequately. Despite anti price gouging laws, I'll give you 1 guess what happens to the price of water and other scarce goods necessary to sustain life. You can set up your own little monopoly for a week or two in your area/neighborhood/town before water, sewage, and electricity services are all working properly again. The problem is, most people choose this time, when others are in their greatest need, to take the greatest advantage of other people. That's why we have price gouging laws in the first place, they were a response to this kind of behavior in a monopoly situation because this is the **** people do to each other.

Ok, and there's nothing wrong with that. There's no obligation for me to worry about you, vice versa. That doesn't mean I wouldn't do something to help you, however I certainly am not obligated to do so, which is the key difference. Those people that live in the south understand when hurricane season is. They choose to be unprepared, and thus suffer the consequences. The people that have the money to buy large quantities and the foresight/risk to do so, should be rewarded. It is a good thing to have money, not a bad one.

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

Ok, and there's nothing wrong with that. There's no obligation for me to worry about you, vice versa. That doesn't mean I wouldn't do something to help you, however I certainly am not obligated to do so, which is the key difference. Those people that live in the south understand when hurricane season is. They choose to be unprepared, and thus suffer the consequences. The people that have the money to buy large quantities and the foresight/risk to do so, should be rewarded. It is a good thing to have money, not a bad one.

As a society, we seem to have decided that such behavior as I've described is morally reprehensible and enacted laws to prevent it. So there's at least something wrong with it.

Edit: I'm not against money, success, or competition in theory, I agree with the spirit of what you're arguing for the most part.

 

[Mad Jack]

Yes. However one group creates the high barrier through success. That's the difference. It's a reward for doing well. That company that blows everyone, good for them! They earned it. They have 0 responsibility to society to provide "fair" prices or whatever. Are you saying they are so successful it's a bad thing? It's not right to penalize a company for doing so well that they destroy the competition, literally. That's a group that should be celebrated, not hurt. In a free market, they got there for a reason. In a world of government rule, they got there because they were on the good side of the right people. I don't see how you can find those to be similar or even in the same frame of thought. Are you really saying you can succeed to a level that is too high, and that we should limit that? If a natural monopoly existed, obviously I wouldn't enjoy paying high prices, but I'd damn sure respect the way they got to be there.

I think you're missing the point. It doesn't matter who is being oppressive and setting barriers, it is inherently bad. Corporations never die, so you essentially would end up with a capitalist system of tyranny and nepotism rather than a democratic one, in which a group of people that didn't even build the successful business but were promoted from within completely gouge and exploit the market. You should see what Nestle has done to the water supplies of some African countries and ask yourself if you really want your life and death to be completely controlled by corporate monopolies. I'd rather have neither the government nor corporations having such power over my life, personally.

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

Yes. However one group creates the high barrier through success. That's the difference. It's a reward for doing well. That company that blows everyone out, good for them! They earned it. They have 0 responsibility to society to provide "fair" prices or whatever. Are you saying they are so successful it's a bad thing? It's not right to penalize a company for doing so well that they destroy the competition, literally. That's a group that should be celebrated, not hurt. In a free market, they got there for a reason. In a world of government rule, they got there because they were on the good side of the right people. I don't see how you can find those to be similar or even in the same frame of thought. Are you really saying you can succeed to a level that is too high, and that we should limit that? If a natural monopoly existed, obviously I wouldn't enjoy paying high prices, but I'd damn sure respect the way they got to be there.

I feel like when someone argues this way, the base assumption is that a person/company dominates the market and swallows up all the competition by being honest, hardworking, and ethical. I just can't accept that premise.

 

[Mad Jack]

Ok, and there's nothing wrong with that. There's no obligation for me to worry about you, vice versa. That doesn't mean I wouldn't do something to help you, however I certainly am not obligated to do so, which is the key difference. Those people that live in the south understand when hurricane season is. They choose to be unprepared, and thus suffer the consequences. The people that have the money to buy large quantities and the foresight/risk to do so, should be rewarded. It is a good thing to have money, not a bad one.

Letting people die for lack of money to buy water at $20 a bottle is considered to be morally reprehensible by 99.99% of society. I'm quite opposed to many forms of regulation, but disaster price gouging regulations exist to save lives and to prevent large-scale market manipulation.

Which is exactly what I think you're missing- a market that is manipulated, whether it be via corporate or government influence, is not considered by economists to be a truly free market. Monopolies are discouraged because they manipulate the markets and create inefficiencies.

 

[Lucca]

Edited for language: This thread is garbage and the sky isn't falling. Read the quotes under this for my in-the-moment nerdrage.

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

Holy ******* ****. Everyone here should buy a subscription to the economist and spend time in medical systems here and abroad. This thread gave me cancer. You people are so ******* ignorant about economics it's insane.

I spent a year reading about the Brits wanting us to handle every conflict in the world, once a week. I'm done with that magazine, good riddance.

And come on, you're better than this post.

Pick your poison:
Hayek
Keynes
Friedman
Krugman
Sowell
etc.

Arguing any one of their positions could be seen as "****ing ignorant" by someone arguing the other's. Economists don't agree on a single damn thing.

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

Holy ******* ****. Everyone here should buy a subscription to the economist and spend time in medical systems here and abroad. This thread gave me cancer. You people are so ******* ignorant about economics it's insane.

Also, you just finished your first year in undergrad and you've "spent time in medical systems here and abroad"? as well as finding time to become so well versed in economics that you can denounce everyone on this thread with that kind of language? Impressive.

 

[graviton]

Holy ******* ****. Everyone here should buy a subscription to the economist and spend time in medical systems here and abroad. This thread gave me cancer. You people are so ******* ignorant about economics it's insane.

The pre-medical section is this way ---> http://forums.studentdoctor.net/forums/pre-medical-allopathic-md.10/

 

[Lucca]

I spent a year reading about the Brits wanting us to handle every damn conflict in the world once a week. I'm done with that magazine, good riddance.

And come on, you're better than this post.

Pick your poison
Friedman
Hayek
Keynes
Krugman
Sowell
etc.

Arguing any one of their positions will be seen as ******* ignorant by someone arguing the other's. Economists don't agree on a single damn thing.

I'm not talking about theory, I'm talking about actual market analytics. This doomsday talk is ridiculous I can't even begin to handle it. The "single payer, checkmate" mentality on here is so asinine. This country will never have true single payer, it would be impossible to implement for the same reasons a central public education apparatus would be impossible to implement and in the end the wealthy would still be able to opt out. Obama and Romney are both on the center right of the political spectrum (globally) and the outcome would have been the same either way - we would have to implement a system that drops healthcare spending overall.

Every dollar we overspend on healthcare is a problem of National Security since usually those dollars get cut from defense spending. Which is insanely high but only because American credit is the only thing holding this world together until the Chinese currency becomes the defacto fiat. Which will never happen by the way because the Chinese know that's a bad move in the long-run. What's the alternative to finding any way to make the system cheaper in the long run even if it costs more in the short-run? Let things be? Let the spending just skyrocket out of control? No, that would be doomsday material.

Also, you just finished your first year in undergrad and you've "spent time in medical systems here and abroad"? as well as finding time to become so well versed in economics that you can denounce everyone on this thread with that kind of language? Impressive.

[Redacted for identifying credentials.]

The worst thing about the ACA is that it operates under the assumption that the healthy 95% will be willing to pay for the sickest 5%. That sort of spirit just doesn't exist here for valid and ridiculous reasons alike.

 

[Darth Doc]

I feel like when someone argues this way, the base assumption is that a person/company dominates the market and swallows up all the competition by being honest, hardworking, and ethical. I just can't accept that premise.

In general, I really appreciate a freemarket society and believe capitalism more successfully uses the flaws of human nature to provide the best overall economic results.

However, I know of a very specific example when a corporation which provides food goods to restaurants and institutions was new to my area. It had significant support from their other locations so it took a loss to undercut all of the local competitors and drive the local competitors out of business. It then jacked up the prices on inferior products to make money. Because there was no competition left, they could do what they wanted and the local restaurants had to increase their prices. That was 10-15 years ago and there still is no local competition.

Monopolies do happen. Businesses do things that are unethical or shady. I see the balance between capitalism and appropriate government oversight to be important. I think it's how much oversight is appropriate is where most of us differ.

 

[Lucca]

Also, you just finished your first year in undergrad and you've "spent time in medical systems here and abroad"? as well as finding time to become so well versed in economics that you can denounce everyone on this thread with that kind of language? Impressive.

I edited my original post for the language, it was rude of me and I was just very angry after reading this thread. I should've just stayed away. I apologize.

 

[PL198]

Letting people die for lack of money to buy water at $20 a bottle is considered to be morally reprehensible by 99.99% of society. I'm quite opposed to many forms of regulation, but disaster price gouging regulations exist to save lives and to prevent large-scale market manipulation.

Which is exactly what I think you're missing- a market that is manipulated, whether it be via corporate or government influence, is not considered by economists to be a truly free market. Monopolies are discouraged because they manipulate the markets and create inefficiencies.

I'm saying that a market free of government regulation can't be manipulated like that. A natural monopoly can't form, so it only happens when the gov't intervenes.

I'm saying that a market free of government regulation can't be manipulated like that. A natural monopoly can't form, so it only happens when the gov't intervenes.

I feel like when someone argues this way, the base assumption is that a person/company dominates the market and swallows up all the competition by being honest, hardworking, and ethical. I just can't accept that premise.

Because the USA isn't anywhere close to a free market. You have anecdotal evidence to contradict my statements based on the fact that you're assuming the USA is a free market. It's not. I completely agree, nowadays a ton of the most successful companies are ones that formed back-room deals. It's a joke. However, that's not how it would be if we removed the restriction.

 

[PL198]

In general, I really appreciate a freemarket society and believe capitalism more successfully uses the flaws of human nature to provide the best overall economic results.

However, I know of a very specific example when a corporation which provides food goods to restaurants and institutions was new to my area. It had significant support from their other locations so it took a loss to undercut all of the local competitors and drive the local competitors out of business. It then jacked up the prices on inferior products to make money. Because there was no competition left, they could do what they wanted and the local restaurants had to increase their prices. That was 10-15 years ago and there still is no local competition.

Monopolies do happen. Businesses do things that are unethical or shady. I see the balance between capitalism and appropriate government oversight to be important. I think it's how much oversight is appropriate is where most of us differ.

Monopolies happen because of government intervention. This is a widely accepted economic view. Honestly, this concept is IMO one of the few things most economists agree about.

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

Because the USA isn't anywhere close to a free market. You have anecdotal evidence to contradict my statements based on the fact that you're assuming the USA is a free market. It's not. I completely agree, nowadays a ton of the most successful companies are ones that formed back-room deals. It's a joke. However, that's not how it would be if we removed the restriction.

Sorry I'm not really following anymore. I was really just extending my "people are ****ty" thesis into why I think monopolies aren't a great thing, even under free market conditions. I do not operate under the assumption that there is a free market in the USA. In fact, most free market die hards have a hard time even pin pointing what is a truly free market and if there has ever been one in history that we can study, in my experience.

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

Monopolies happen because of government intervention. This is a widely accepted economic view. Honestly, this concept is IMO one of the few things most economists agree about.

Does this statement apply to the Standard Oil example?

 

[Lucca]

Monopolies happen because of government intervention. This is a widely accepted economic view. Honestly, this concept is IMO one of the few things most economists agree about.

I don't think it's the government egging on the Time Warner/Comcast M&A right now. Also Carlos Slim's defacto Telemex monopoly happened pretty quickly and naturally while the government did nothing. I think it was Taft that spent a good deal of his presidency busting trusts? I could be wrong on that one but around that gilded age time period there was a president busting monopolies left and right.

The American economy has worked on a cycle of disruption and re-invention since the 90s. I.e one industry stagnates, a company comes and disrupts that space and omnoms the market share, other companies fall, etc, pivot and adapt, and the cycle continues. So I say your statement that monopolies are not natural is true in technology and finance but for industry and manufacturing I would say monopolies are quite natural.

 

[Nidor]

.

 

[PL198]

Does this statement apply to the Standard Oil example?

I'm not super familiar with the case, but it was roughly 120 years ago, so the market was certainly a bit more free. That's probably the best example I can think of to counterattack my argument though.

 

[PL198]

I don't think it's the government egging on the Time Warner/Comcast M&A right now. Also Carlos Slim's defacto Telemex monopoly happened pretty quickly and naturally while the government did nothing. I think it was Taft that spent a good deal of his presidency busting trusts? I could be wrong on that one but around that gilded age time period there was a president busting monopolies left and right.

The American economy has worked on a cycle of disruption and re-invention since the 90s. I.e one industry stagnates, a company comes and disrupts that space and omnoms the market share, other companies fall, etc, pivot and adapt, and the cycle continues. So I say your statement that monopolies are not natural is true in technology and finance but for industry and manufacturing I would say monopolies are quite natural.

Why is it surprising Taft did that(although busting monopolies a bit leading as I can call anything I want a monopoly )? It's along the lines of his parties views. I would definitely say the incredible amount of regulation on the cable industry is why the TWC merger is going on.

Your second paragraph proves that those aren't monopolies then. An actual monopoly is dominant for so long, that basically no one can compete, succeed and retool to be successful later. Which is why I'm saying it's not possible. That could be a transient monopoly-like entity, but they aren't going to stay there, just like you said.

 

[Mad Jack]

I'm not quite following you... I'm against monopolies too and mentioned many of the reasons you elaborated on... That's why I said a free market needs to be protected from monopolies..

I agree with you- later I basically state that both monopolies and excessive regulation end in the same sort of way, with stifled competition and high barriers to entry, just with different gatekeepers.

 

[Nidor]

.

 

[circulus vitios]

This thread got real stupid real fast.