anonymous asked:

Do you or do you not support for-profit healthcare? If you do, you are not pro-life. You cannot say you care care for the poor if you support a system that lets people die for lack of ability to pay for medical care. And the fact that you think that doing some charity work somehow makes up for supporting such a heinous system is just sad.

I will agree with you that our healthcare system really sucks, but socialized medicine is NOT going to fix the problem - it will actually make it worse. The reality is that healthcare is expensive because the government screws with it. They restrict competition in the insurance market and that drives up the costs.

This may surprise you, but socialized healthcare systems have actually been known to kill people.  There end up being fewer doctors and reduced facilities to accommodate patients.

In an account given by Kitty Werthmann, she warns America about the horrors of socialized medicine:  “After Hitler, health care was socialized, free for everyone. Doctors were salaried by the government. The problem was, since it was free, the people were going to the doctors for everything. When the good doctor arrived at his office at 8 a.m., 40 people were already waiting and, at the same time, the hospitals were full. If you needed elective surgery, you had to wait a year or two for your turn. There was no money for research as it was poured into socialized medicine. Research at the medical schools literally stopped, so the best doctors left Austria and emigrated to other countries. As for healthcare, our tax rates went up to 80 percent of our income…”

Here’s an illustration for this which I got from @professorlogan81: “Imagine the patient, health insurance company, and the doctor as points of a triangle with the government in the middle as a circle….  What happens as the circle grows larger?  It starts to get between the patient and their doctor and insurance company.”

The science of matchmaking

Would you let an economist set you up on a date?

Economics is often associated with the idea of money. But the field extends beyond what can be (or should be) monetized.

Long before dating sites like OKCupid and Match.com, a pair of economists delved into the question of matchmaking and they hit upon a formula with applications far beyond romance.

Like love, research works in mysterious ways. The results and impacts are sometimes unpredictable and unexpected — and that’s a big part of what makes it so important.

How a matchmaking algorithm saved lives

Feel Bakunin, Not The Bern

Having come across a bit of Mikhail Bakunin in my readings over the years, I am reminded of some of his great quotes in light of Bernie Sanders’ ascent and the seeming popular appeal of so-called “democratic socialism.”

We are convinced that freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice, and that socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality.

When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called “the People’s Stick.”

The [authentic] peoples’ revolution … will arrange its revolutionary organization from the bottom up and from the periphery to the center, in keeping with the principle of liberty.

In a word, we reject all legislation, all authority, and all privileged, licensed, official, and legal influence, even though arising from universal suffrage, convinced that it can turn only to the advantage of a dominant minority of exploiters against the interest of the immense majority in subjection to them. This is the sense in which we are really Anarchists.

Why Socialism Does Not Work

Recently I’ve been seeing an article pop up that’s become an advocate for Bernie Sanders’ economic policy, saying that “

Under Sanders, income and jobs would soar.” The article ( http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/08/news/economy/sanders-income-jobs/index.html ) talks about how Sanders’ jobs plan will boost the economy and create Jobs. While I applaud Sanders for his concern with the economy, I cannot stay silent and let this improper economic thinking continue to spread throughout the United States.

For the purpose of straying away from name calling, I will not refer to Sanders directly from here on out. I am going to specifically address socialism, the theory that is used to support Sanders’ economic policy. Without further ado, let’s talk economics!

(1) Economics isn’t about money, it’s about resources.

Everyone loves money, and they automatically associate it with the economy, but this isn’t always the case. Economics has a simpler and more subtle definition then “The way money flows.” Thomas Sowell, in his book Basic Economics, defines economics as “Economics is the study of the use of scarce resources which have alternative uses.” If economics was only about money, then bartering wouldn’t have much value then, would it? Money is the statistic that shows where resources are supposed to go. In socialistic economies, the government what to price things at and that decides where the money goes, whereas in capitalistic economies, prices alone decide where money goes. Capitalism basically cuts out an entire step of the process and makes things way more efficient. During the cold war, the Soviet Union had to pump out 4x as many resources than the US to make any given product because, since prices didn’t show how scarce an item was, people didn’t have any concern for how much they used when producing the finished product. Prices are not evil things, they are statistics that efficiently place products where they need to go. An example would be a hotel in a hurricane devastated area. Say the hotel could house 100 families, and 100 families lined up and could afford an $80 room. In a capitalistic society, prices would reach $80 and every family would get a room, or families would double up and even more people could get a room. In a price controlled, socialistic system, prices would be set lower ($40 for this example) in order to make the rooms more “affordable.” This creates a dilemma because one family may buy two rooms for added comfort, and thus create a shortage of available products. By letting capitalistic incentives dictate prices, everyone can get what they need efficiently and effectively.

(2) Government induced wage and job increases will only lead to inflation.

Some jobs are worth more than others, and for good reasons. Flipping a burger at McDonald’s does not pay well because burgers only gain a few dollar’s profit. If wages were increased, the corporate level would either have to raise prices or cut hours to pay for the wage increase. Both of these outcomes are not socialism’s intention, but both are outcomes of price and wage controls. With the increase of wages by government standards, all prices of goods will have to inflate to compensate. This causes a vastly inflated economy. $80,000

median income sounds great, but what if a burger costs $17? Inflating the economy will not help the economy, it will only hurt current savings and leave the poor in the same bracket but with seemingly “more” money. Before the Federal Reserve was created, inflation was relatively low, but after it was created, inflation increased over 2400%. Inflation does not help the economy, it only makes it more confusing. Some may argue that inflation helps leverage the burden of recessions, but we as a society should be careful before we use Band-Aids to cover bullet holes. Inflation will always hurt long term, and will hurt future generations of Americans.

(3) A Government Sponsored Recession

Back in the early 2000’s, the federal government decided that everyone should be able to buy a house. This led to the fed lowering interest rates on loans to almost 0%. In addition, a system of “Mark-to-market” accounting was in place. Mark-to-market accounting forced banks to write asset devaluations as straight monetary loss, and was implemented to increase transparency. In actuality, a combination of mark-to-market accounting and the Fed’s low interest rates led investors to believe the market was safe when in actuality it was a ticking time bomb. Thus, when the market crashed, all of the investors who were revealed to have been way past where they should have been were labeled as greedy even though the government was the one who was confusing everyone. Though we’ve only had 3 major recessions since the Fed’s creation, they have been major because people realize economic problems too late. Capitalism isn’t as “stable” as everyone would like with its “creative destruction” drastically changing the market, but its recessions are smaller and more controlled most of the time. Plus, they always lead to a brighter future with better and cheaper products. From 1800-1900, the real GDP growth was 4.1%, while, from 1900-200, real GDP growth was 3.3%. The Fed was created in 1913. Draw your own conclusions.

Also, please note that panics are different from recessions. Yes, I realize there were major panics before the Fed’s creation, but I will discuss those later when I have more specific knowledge on them.

Conclusion:

While Sanders’ economic plan sounds good on the outside, it neglects to mention the problems it will inevitably bring. The past has shown that real GDP growth occurs when the market is allowed to have free reign in deciding where resources are best allocated, not under government control. I hoped this has help educate you on the dangers of socialism, and I look forward to receiving your comments!

mises.org
Where Keynes Went Wrong
Read it now, for FREE!

Hunter Lewis’s book Where Keynes Went Wrong was the greatest literary surprise of 2009, a welcome relief from a slew of awful books on economics appearing in the popular press. Lewis’s book is thoroughly Austrian, a recapitulation of Hazlitt’s argument against Keynes applied to contemporary problems, and is accessible to anyone with a basic economic understanding. He has learned from Rothbard, Reisman, Hutt, Rueff, Mises, and Hayek.

It rightly begins with what Keynes himself said. For many people, this part might be the biggest surprise, since, in fact, Keynes is rarely read today. The next section shows precisely where Keynes made mistakes, so many of them that his judgment has to be reversed. Where Keynes said that spending and not saving is the path to prosperity, the author shows that this is in fact the path to poverty.

Lewis takes apart the parade of paradoxes that are strewn through Keynes’s work. He points out that most are not paradoxes at all; they are simply untrue!

The common mistake in Keynes is treating history as theory and theory as history. For example, he will observe a superficial empirical pattern and proclaim it a law. It is left to Lewis to show how the pattern does not actually hold up, giving example after example. He then shows the correct theory that fits all existing facts.

One is left with a sense of astonishment that such a tissue of fallacies could have so deeply embedded itself in into the mainstream opinions of media and government and academic leaders — even public consciousness. Lewis smashes the edifice completely in this extremely well-done book.

Take a look. This book might sound intimidating but it is an extremely accessible and easy read. Finally available for free thanks to Hunter Lewis and the Mises Institute! 

Especially if you already are an Austrian and an Anti-Keynesian, but you’ve never read Keynes, there’s no excuse now.

youtube.com
Goldman Sachs 10,000 Women: Proving the Case for Women Entrepreneurs
On September 23, 2014, Goldman Sachs 10,000 Women hosted its annual dinner at the Clinton Global Initiative.

During the last Democratic debate, Bernie Sanders once again brought up the fact that Hillary Clinton had been invited several times to speak for events hosted by Goldman Sachs. Sanders’ concern was what Hillary said during those speeches, as well as why she accepted the payments she received–which, frankly, has very little to do with this presidential election. During the debate, Hillary was asked by the moderators if she would release the transcripts of those speeches. Hillary said she would look into it.

Here’s a video of one of those speeches, an empowering speech about the need for female entrepreneurs. I know this is only one speech, but if all the others are like this one, a certain presidential candidate may need to apologize for his accusations of corruption.

SHOCKING new study: Colleges respond to financial aid by raising tuition

The government promises kids financial aid or virtually unlimited loans to cover high college tuition and, as a response, colleges raise tuition. This is obvious. In fact, colleges would be stupid not to raise prices.

read the rest