Trump: U.S. will never default 'because you print the money'

[jaeger19]

So you are saying then that healthcare is a non-competitive market, the number of doctors, facilities does not effect price....unless you reduce supply....then price will reduce.

Oh no.. its a competitive market.. in many ways very competitive. the number of doctors and facilities do effect price. The more supply.. generally the higher the price.

that's because prices are set by two factors... what a cost of a service is..and what people are willing to pay for that service.

Well.. when you have a lot of physician practices... each with a lot of overhead, insurance, nurses, building, x ray machine, x ray tech. That adds up to a lot of cost..and each practice has to get enough to cover that cost plus some profit.
So that increase in supply adds to the baseline cost to provide those services and thus increases the price.

 

[jaeger19]

But if you are arguing that we have an "over-supply" of doctors, why would we need NP/AP's?

If the argument from you is that healthcare is monopolistic, then you should not be using it in discussions of markets since we are not discussing monopoly markets.

Well we have an oversupply of doctors in part because we HAVE nurse practitioners/and Physician Assistants.

And no.. I am not arguing healthcare is monopolistic. Its becoming so in response to decreased reimbursement.. but right now.. its not monopolistic and thus prices for services are higher. If it was monopolistic, as it is in many other countries.. then the cost of healthcare would most likely decrease.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Oh no.. its a competitive market.. in many ways very competitive. the number of doctors and facilities do effect price. The more supply.. generally the higher the price.

That is not a competitive market, at all.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

If it was monopolistic, as it is in many other countries.. then the cost of healthcare would most likely decrease.

Oh, monopolies cause lower prices. Cool story, brah.

 

[jaeger19]

That is not a competitive market, at all.

Sure it is. Its a very competitive market where we compete on timeliness and quality of service and value of service.

 

[jaeger19]

Oh, monopolies cause lower prices. Cool story, brah.

monopolies can certainly cause lower prices. Monopolies tend to be very efficient, and have economy of scale which means much lower costs. Its what allows them to undercut their competition in the first place.

In 1865, when Rockefeller’s market share was still minuscule, a gallon of kerosene cost 58 cents. In 1870, Standard’s market share was 4%, and a gallon cost 26 cents. By 1880, when Standard’s market share had skyrocketed to 90%, a gallon cost only 9 cents — and a decade later, with Standard’s market share still at 90%, the price was 7 cents. These data point to the real cause of Standard Oil’s success — its ability to charge the lowest prices by producing kerosene with unparalleled efficiency.

Read more: Vindicating Standard Oil, 100 years later | The Daily Caller

True story "Brah".

 

[Gimmesometruth]

monopolies can certainly cause lower prices. Monopolies tend to be very efficient, and have economy of scale which means much lower costs. Its what allows them to undercut their competition in the first place. True story "Brah".

That is not proof of the price becoming even lower due to competition.

But you were supposed to oppose the idea that anything we were talking about was a monopoly.
The comments from you of the US medical system coincide with the description of a monopoly....but then, that is using standard definitions.

 

[jaeger19]

That is not proof of the price becoming even lower due to competition.

But you were supposed to oppose the idea that anything we were talking about was a monopoly.
The comments from you of the US medical system coincide with the description of a monopoly....but then, that is using standard definitions.

Whoa there skippy. It amazes me how you twist things around.

Kerosene prices lowered as Standard oil became more and more a monopoly because it was able to offer lower prices due to efficiency.

Secondly. The US medical system is NOT a monopoly.. in fact far from it.. (though its heading that way because liberals like you want more efficiency and lower costs).

nothing I have stated makes the US medical system " a monopoly"... Using standard definitions.

 

[Absentglare]

Sure it is. Its a very competitive market where we compete on timeliness and quality of service and value of service.

If what you claim here were true, this could not occur :

"Can you tell how good a job hospital CEOs are doing by the amount they are paid? A study by investigators at the Harvard School of Public Health this week suggests that the answer is no. Published in the Journal of the American Medical Association: Internal Medicine, the study found no link between nonprofit CEO pay and a number of important hospital quality indicators, including mortality rates, readmission rates, and the amount of charity care such institutions provide. Such findings are especially ironic at a time when many hospital executives say that improving quality is their organization’s top priority."

Why Are Hospital CEOs Paid So Well? - The Atlantic

 

[jaeger19]

If what you claim here were true, this could not occur :

"Can you tell how good a job hospital CEOs are doing by the amount they are paid? A study by investigators at the Harvard School of Public Health this week suggests that the answer is no. Published in the Journal of the American Medical Association: Internal Medicine, the study found no link between nonprofit CEO pay and a number of important hospital quality indicators, including mortality rates, readmission rates, and the amount of charity care such institutions provide. Such findings are especially ironic at a time when many hospital executives say that improving quality is their organization’s top priority."

Why Are Hospital CEOs Paid So Well? - The Atlantic

Of course it can occur. why could it not.

Heck.. look at CEO pay in general.

Besides quality care indicators like those above are not what patients are generally concerned about anyway.. in fact lower readmission rates probably lowers patient satisfaction.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Whoa there skippy. It amazes me how you twist things around.

Kerosene prices lowered as Standard oil became more and more a monopoly because it was able to offer lower prices due to efficiency.

No, not entirely, it was able to crush labor costs by anti-union activities, it gained market share by underhanded methods (below cost sales, temporary transportation rebates). The path for a monopoly is to capture market, then increase prices.

Secondly. The US medical system is NOT a monopoly.. in fact far from it.. (though its heading that way because liberals like you want more efficiency and lower costs).

What I want is a single payer system, like all other major industrial states. But then, in your twist vocabulary, that is a monopoly.

nothing I have stated makes the US medical system " a monopoly"... Using standard definitions.

If price is not lowered while supply increases, then you might have price collusion, in effect, a monopoly. Again, we were not talking about manipulated markets.

 

[jaeger19]

No, not entirely, it was able to crush labor costs by anti-union activities, it gained market share by underhanded methods (below cost sales, temporary transportation rebates). The path for a monopoly is to capture market, then increase prices.

What I want is a single payer system, like all other major industrial states. But then, in your twist vocabulary, that is a monopoly.

If price is not lowered while supply increases, then you might have price collusion, in effect, a monopoly. Again, we were not talking about manipulated markets.

at the end of the day though.. its lower prices.. and through efficiency and economy of scale. the fact is that a decade after Standard oil captured market share of 90%. Kerosene prices actually were lower.

Well.. a single payer system is a monopoly. What else is it? A competitive market? The only one twisting vocabulary here is you.

If price is not lowered while supply increases, then you might have price collusion, in effect, a monopoly. Again, we were not talking about manipulated markets.

You might.. but that's not always the case. the US medical system is NOT a monopoly.. and part of the reason that healthcare costs more is because we are basically oversupplied. The inefficiency caused by multiple facilities increases the base cost to provide care. Its not a "manipulated market"...

I get that the truth does not fit into your narrative/ideology. But the facts remain the same.

 

[Absentglare]

Of course it can occur. why could it not.

Heck.. look at CEO pay in general.

Besides quality care indicators like those above are not what patients are generally concerned about anyway.. in fact lower readmission rates probably lowers patient satisfaction.

The study disagrees with your cursory analysis. The disparity in administrator income is due to market's failure to appropriately price these services.

 

[Critter7r]

...

Secondly. The US medical system is NOT a monopoly.. in fact far from it.. (though its heading that way because liberals like you want more efficiency and lower costs).

...
You might.. but that's not always the case. the US medical system is NOT a monopoly.. and part of the reason that healthcare costs more is because we are basically oversupplied. The inefficiency caused by multiple facilities increases the base cost to provide care. Its not a "manipulated market"...

I get that the truth does not fit into your narrative/ideology. But the facts remain the same.

Does that mean that the conservatives want the health care system to remain inefficient and overpriced?

 

[Critter7r]

at the end of the day though.. its lower prices.. and through efficiency and economy of scale. the fact is that a decade after Standard oil captured market share of 90%. Kerosene prices actually were lower.

...

This sounds as if you don't care how a company comes to offer lower prices to its customers.

 

[austrianecon]

That's no different from saying you've proven global warming is happening because this month is warmer than last month.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

Of course, but I am making a point here. Short term (5 to 10 years of bond rates) are NOT normal, just like Temps measuring a 200 to 300 period aren't a complete picture. Right now, Bonds are historical lows, and we should borrow in 30 year bonds to do certain things, and JfC will tell you, I've laid out a good plan in spending on infrastructure that will put the US in 21st and 22nd century, but with what I propose I am not saying print all the time or borrow all the time either as this is a blip of low interest rates right now.

 

[austrianecon]

No, it's not just the limit being 80% (your not even close btw). It's also about monetary policy as well, meaning uncle sam can't just dump extra dollars into the economy to pay for something without removing dollars (US Government creates a debt obligation borrows from whoever and those dollars are removed), it's a 1 for 1 trade. If Government just print to pay it's bills, inflation will creep higher at lower Capacity utilization levels.

I don't care what argument's he's making. He's on the right track but fails to grasp long term effects.

Your issue and many MMTers is the believe capacity will expand at a rate to off set it. If your premise was correct there would be 0% inflation (all the time). That's just not the case as supply is NOT flexible as you think especially in a human worker driven economy. Maybe in a world of 100% automation but then that would make MMT 100% useless as everybody would be Technological unemployed yet still wealthy via "social transfers" and that day will come at some point.

Did I stump MMTers?

 

[austrianecon]

Yes, but business growth falls into two categories. 1) Increased market share 2) increased demand via population growth. With #1 that means some other company is getting SMALLER and nothing in the Net changed. Think switching from Colgate to Aquafresh. #2 is split between the market players. So growth is limited and actually managed very well. Massive problems arise when unforeseen growth takes place.. in production and logistics. These fixes take time, sometimes even years if you have to build a new plant and by the time you build that new plant, demand might have fallen by then. So companies are typically hesitant to jump in on short term demand increases.

Also in monopoly industries.. there is little fat chance demand is met 100% of the time but these industries are heavily regulated. Think your power and cable/internet providers.. in which cost increase all the time despite very little improvement.




Well, prices are a hell of a lot higher when compared to previous decades. Think gas prices, postage stamp, a car, and a house (ironically, house building out supplied demand yet prices rose). So you have either two choices here.. increase of the money supply cause inflation (which you deny) or prices do rise despite increases due to demand.

Are you stumped Jfc?

 

[Absentglare]

Did I stump MMTers?

No, i'm just bored of attempting to overcome your fundamental inability to understand that we can create money.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Are you stumped Jfc?

No, I'm not stumped. Like Absentglare, I'm just tired of beating my head against a brick wall.

The overarching point, which I stand by, is that production does increase in response to increased demand, and prices generally don't increase. Is it perfect? Of course not, but that does not invalidate the point. If your team was right, then inflation is due to any increase in commerce, because when commerce increases, demand goes up. And when commerce increases, business investment goes up, so the money supply increases as well. Is that really the position you want to take? Increased economic activity is the cause of inflation?

There are sensible reasons for inflation - limited real estate, interest on loans, cartels, etc. There are far more than two reasons why prices go up or down.

 

[austrianecon]

No, I'm not stumped. Like Absentglare, I'm just tired of beating my head against a brick wall.

The overarching point, which I stand by, is that production does increase in response to increased demand, and prices generally don't increase. Is it perfect? Of course not, but that does not invalidate the point. If your team was right, then inflation is due to any increase in commerce, because when commerce increases, demand goes up. And when commerce increases, business investment goes up, so the money supply increases as well. Is that really the position you want to take? Increased economic activity is the cause of inflation?

There are sensible reasons for inflation - limited real estate, interest on loans, cartels, etc. There are far more than two reasons why prices go up or down.

No I asked you some simple economic questions you haven't addressed. If MMT (which is a Finance theory) can't address an economic question.. then your theory is useless. SO you either answer it or admit you have no answer.

 

[austrianecon]

No, i'm just bored of attempting to overcome your fundamental inability to understand that we can create money.

No, it's a position of you have NO clue how we currently create dollars. So I've put you and MMTers fantasy believers in a position in which even Warren Mosler can't help you. It's okay.. it's called a fantasy for a reason.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

No, it's a position of you have NO clue how we currently create dollars. So I've put you and MMTers fantasy believers in a position in which even Warren Mosler can't help you. It's okay.. it's called a fantasy for a reason.

I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree, then, because I think that you don't understand how we create dollars. And you still believe that there is a real cost to do so.

 

[leoborn]

Change the nativism to celebrity worship and you have Obama.

Saw this the other day.

We are more than $19 TRILLION dollars in debt. If we didn't add a penny more, but started to repay the debt at $10 million dollars a day, 365 days a year, how many years would it take to pay it off?

5,220 years!

And people are worrying about leaving their great-grandchildren this burden? HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa Better add another couple thousand "greats" to that list of payers!

 

[Moderate Right]

I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree, then, because I think that you don't understand how we create dollars. And you still believe that there is a real cost to do so.

We understand completely how you want to create dollars. You want to keep the printing press working 24/7, the hell with how much debt we have or the other consequences of printing too much money. At some point the printing press breaks.