[quote=livinincali][quote=CA renter]
The truth is that consumers do NOT have the ability to choose the lowest-priced provider of goods and services. These markets are highly regulated and controlled to keep competition out and to protect the interests of our corporations, educational system (mandated licensing), and the wealthy individuals who benefit from these things. Presumably, we do this to protect society, in general. I think an equally (or more) compelling case can be made for the protection of labor. Societies do not benefit when immense wealth is concentrated in a few hands while the masses live in sickness and squalor. Additionally, it is (well-compensated) labor that creates the demand necessary for these corporations to thrive.[/quote]
My solution would be to roll back some of the competitive protections for capital and businesses rather than adding more rules and regulations to protect labor. It’s a never ending circle that slows down economic growth because those rules and regulations have a cost and that cost is a non productive one.
The quickest way to lower the price of health care services would be to open it up to more competition. One really simple change would be to open prescription drugs to re importation. Then drugs that cost $100 here and $10 in Canada would quickly cost less here and probably slightly more in Canada. Of course instead of doing that we rolled out a stupid plan called medicare D to protect seniors from the rising cost of drugs. You eliminate the ban of re importation of drugs you don’t need a stupid plan like medicare D.
My problem with the government is we create a regulation to protect the producers of a product, then we pass a law to protect the consumers of that product, and everybody else gets to pay a little bit extra to support that model. That way the producers can make their profit margin and the consumers can be subsidized to support that profit margin. It would be cheaper and better for the economy if we stopped supporting noncompetitive business and labor.
I’m not in favor of a free for all and certainly I don’t mind tariffs or some other competitive tactics to keep most anti pollution laws on the books because that does indeed benefit everybody. But too many things are lumped into the “it’s for the greater good” when it’s really to support the few at the expense of the many.[/quote]
It’s pretty clear that, without unions, capital will always hold all the power and wealth. There will be no rolling back of protection for capital if labor is weak.
If you can show us some examples of countries without labor protections that have a better economy/society than developed nations where labor has more power, I’d like to see it.
You still haven’t addressed how highly concentrated wealth/power would benefit society or our economy, the platitudes about “wealth and growth,” notwithstanding. The rhetoric in favor or capital and supply-side economics does not match reality.
