Monday, December 08, 2008

Nationalized Automotive Industry?
















40 acres and a mule, a chicken in every pot, and now a car in every garage? The Wall Street Journal surmises the government could take a stake in all three. More like a stake in capitalism's heart. Socialism is a coming boys and girls, and it's going to suck becoming like a European country. 

Thank you for reading this blog. 

6 comments:

Héctor said...

Yes... You are all going to hate free health care, really long vacations, short working hours and all those socialist evils in Europe...

Well, leaving sarcasm behind, don0t you think you are overreacting a little? I mean, US Government has always subsidized some industries (I think that at some point, even big time companies like GE recieved government handouts...)... It's not like they'll be property of the federal government, is it?

The Right Guy said...

I don't need government healthcare, I get 4 weeks of vacation, and the trade off with europe is all the regulations. It's a safetycrat's and nanny-stater's dream. When it comes to all these entitlements, the tradeoffs in personal freedom and self-determination are too many. As far as GE goes, I don't believe in subsidies for anyone or anything.

Héctor said...

What about the people that need free health care (or, at least, a very cheap one)?

The Right Guy said...

If you want free healthcare, let the market work. Insurance drives prices up. Because the money is pooled and spent centrally, people on the supply or demand side don't have the knowledge or care who pays for it or how much. In others words it inflates what the market will bear. The same has happened with student loans. The cost of college has far outstripped inflation. If people paid for either out of their pockets, the supply side would have to lower their prices to remain viable and competitive. Lastly, people over insure. Insurance should be for hospitalization. Doctor's visits should an expense that the individual pays.

Héctor said...

The thing with insurances is that they are subject to moral hazard (a consecuence of the existence of information assymetry in the market). Since the insurance companies don't know exactly what is the probability of every individual of recieving hospitalization, they can either (a)make a partial insurance for those with the lowest probability (leaving them worse off than those with a higher risk) or (b) make an "average" insurance, leaving out, again, some indivduals...

And what about those who can't even afford insurance?

The Right Guy said...

Rubbish and double-talk. Insurance companies write policies for cars that do not cover to the extent of what we expect with our own persons. If they did, it would cost 10x what it does to insure a car. They cover hospitalization as a matter of fact with healthcare anyway. All the other things are gravy, like chiropractic, psychotherapy, doctor visits etc. People in this country go to the doctor for every little sniffle and ache. it's really abusive. If they had to pay for it out of their pocket, they'd use more common sense and the market would work. As far as those who really can't afford it, there is Medicaid. It already exists. Anything else is just an agenda to creep in socialism.

You also might like:

Related Posts with Thumbnails