Texas Straight Talk

Competition With the Government?

Last Saturday many concerned Americans watched in horror as the House passed the healthcare reform bill.  If this bill makes it through the Senate, it would massively overhaul the way healthcare is delivered in this country.  Today, obviously, we don’t have a perfect system, but this legislation takes all the mistakes we are making with healthcare and makes them worse.  Most of what is wrong with healthcare stems from decades of government intervention and the resulting unintended consequences.

But the government’s prescription for the ills caused by intervention is always more intervention.  We see this not only in healthcare policy, but also in foreign policy, in economic policy, and in monetary policy - basically, in all areas of public policy.  It was even claimed that the House bill would increase competition in healthcare, and thereby improve the private sector’s business model for insurance.

It is fascinating that politicians would use the language of the free market in this way to justify more corporatism.  This demonstrates a couple of things.  One, that politicians truly do not understand the very basic tenets of a free market.  By definition, a free market is free from government intervention.  But once a little intervention is accepted as legitimate, politicians will blame the problems created by their intervention on the free market and present themselves as saviors that must intervene even more.

It also demonstrates that politicians know that Americans still believe the free market is a good thing.  People know and understand that competition among businesses is better for the consumer than a monopoly.  However, competition between a private business and a government or government-favored entity is not real competition.

In real competition, your competitor can go bankrupt if they do a bad job.  Everyone knows a government program is forever, no matter how poorly it performs.  In real competition, efficiency is necessary for survival.  In government programs, waste is rewarded as budgets are often determined by how much money a department is able to consume in a year.  In real competition, one business does not have regulatory or taxation authority over its competitors.  In real competition, businesses get sued and punished for breaking contracts and defrauding people, and are kept accountable in this way.  But just try to sue the government when you are unjustly harmed by it!

The reason real competition is a good thing is because good businesses get bad ones out of the consumer’s way.  Can the government put someone out of business?  Most certainly!  But it will have the opposite effect:  an otherwise good business will be replaced by a poorly performing government agency, or a government-favored monolithic business that behaves almost like a government agency.

If Washington really wanted to give consumers more choices they would remove legislative and regulatory barriers to competition across state lines for health insurers.  They would remove barriers for new and innovative models of healthcare and tort reform.  They wouldn’t have run so many church and charitable hospitals out of business.  Washington is keenly interested in healthcare reform, but it is certainly not going to increase competition or to expand your options for healthcare.

http://www.house.gov/htbin/blog_inc?BLOG,tx14_paul,blog,999,All,Item%20not%20found,ID=091116_3599,TEMPLATE=postingdetail.shtml

888-322-1414

Maybe the problem isn't to do with the economic system but the levels of obesity.

government businesses can be profitable and competitive

>>2
In a way you're right. If more Americans went back to a more raw clean food and beverage diet, then the obesity problem wouldn't be such an issue. Unfortunately, the opposite is the case because junk food and sodas and candy are cheaper than fresh fruits and vegetables.

Also, four large companies pretty much control 90% of the agriculture to which causes smaller farmers out of business. Farmers who could otherwise provide natural and healthy raw food and drink to people on a local scale.

>>3
Name a few. Because they're quite too wasteful to survive if ran independently.

>>4
Yeah because like carrots are so expensive.

>Also, four large companies pretty much control 90% of the agriculture
Name them.

>>5
Yeah because like carrots are so expensive.

Over the period of 1985-2000, the following items went up 10 percent or more in price, corrected for inflation:

    * Bread, cereal, and baked goods
    * Fruits and vegetables

Fresh fruits and vegetables became 40% more expensive. The following items went down in price more than 10 percent:

    * Sugar and sweets
    * Fats and oils

Soft drinks became 20 percent less expensive. (Source: USDA ERS FoodReview, 25.3)

Name them.

1. Archer Daniels Midland Corporation (ADM)
2. ConAgra
3. Monsanto
4. Zapata Corporation (although this one is a "holding company" it still has quite a lot of influence on the industry).

>>4
they definitely are in the minority, but singapore does surprisingly well i think

>>6
Fresh fruits and vegetables always become more expensive as the population centralises and urbanises, the price of canned fruit and vegetables however is extremely low.

http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/blscu/CUUR0000SEFM01
1998 01   101·800
2008 01   129·038
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi
"What cost $1.018 in 1998 would cost $1.34 in 2008. "
Canned fruit and vegetables decreased in price by 3.7%.


http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=cag
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=mon
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=adm
Together they have revenues of $87 billion while america's $190 billion agricultural sector, even if I do not take into account their offshore revenues their market share in this sector is still less than 50%.


The real question here is just why is capitalism so awesome?

while america's agricultural sector is $190 billion

oops

>>8
Fresh fruits and vegetables always become more expensive as the population centralises and urbanises

Under the current system, yes. I did say that local farmers cannot provide to local communities as much as they could because of government intervention and corporatism. This also depends upon the state their farms reside in as well. The more lenient, the better for them.

>>8
Oh, also forgot to mention those canned fruit and vegetables are quite processed as well. They're almost never raw, and forget about them being pesticide free. :-\

>>10
>>11
There are virtually no bureaucratic obstacles preventing farmers from selling to their local communities, in the south most close knit agrarian communities trade wholesale "under the radar" and thus totally tax free. What is the state going to do? Count every cob of corn they produce?

Oh and the idea that processed food is unhealthy only has a pseudo-scientific basis, all canning factories have to do is heat it up, they're just wasting money adding preservatives to it because there's no point. Pesticides increase crop yields so food would be more expensive without them, the real problem is overpopulation which has little to do with the inherantly social darwinist capitalist system.

>>12
There are virtually no bureaucratic obstacles preventing farmers from selling to their local communities

Sales of raw milk are legal in 28 out of 50 US states, many states have laws that prohibit such sales. Of course raw milk cheese is legal in some of those states where fluid raw milk is banned, so some farmers do sell it "under the radar", which is of course risky because they could get caught.

Also, once every few years, Congress doles out millions of dollars to enormous agribusiness corporations so they can continue to buy corn, biofuels and other items from around the world cheap, subsidized by taxpayers. Agribusiness uses this opportunity to continue driving small farmers out of existence.

Not to mention new legislation like the NAIS (National Animal Identification System) which would standardize the corporate agribusinesses and in turn drive even more family farms out of business.

Of course some people find loopholes around it, and yes there are many local farmers who sell their goods under the radar, but to deny that there are no bureaucratic obstacles that can hinder what they can and cannot sell is quite ignorant.

Oh and the idea that processed food is unhealthy only has a pseudo-scientific basis, all canning factories have to do is heat it up, they're just wasting money adding preservatives to it because there's no point.

Have you actually seen those factory lines? They can be quite filthy, and it doesn't surprise me that there are salmonella and E. coli outbreaks once in a while coming out of these big food producers. Those kinds of things wouldn't happen if done on a local scale by families and their farms, and even if it did, it would only affect things on a very local scale.

Speaking of salmonella, worst case of salmonella in milk was with big, inefficient, agribusiness which have no choice but to pasteurize and drug up their cows which even after pasteurization can still be contaminated.

New York Times article dated April 17^th, 1985:
http://www.nytimes.com/1985/04/17/garden/salmonella-outbreak-is-traced.html

As for processed foods in general:

http://www.articlesbase.com/health-articles/top-5-hidden-dangers-in-processed-foods-609388.html
http://www.freedomyou.com/nutrition_book/enriched_fortified_synthetic_food.htm

Pesticides increase crop yields so food would be more expensive without them

Which correlates with the ever increasing centralization of agriculture.

the real problem is overpopulation

In a way, I agree. What I find funny is that the same government that encourages its citizens to cut back on resources turns its back on all the flood of illegal immigrants entering the country ever year.

which has little to do with the inherantly social darwinist capitalist system

The what?

Audit the Fed Attached as an Amendment

I was pleased last week when we won a vote in the Financial Services Committee to include language from the Audit the Fed bill HR1207 in the upcoming financial regulatory reform bill.  As it stands now, if HR 3996 passes, because of this action, the Federal Reserve’s entire balance sheet will be opened up to a GAO audit.  We will at last have a chance to find out what happened to the trillions of dollars the Fed has been giving out.

Finally, the blanket restrictions on GAO audits of the Fed that have existed since 1978 will be removed.  All items on the Fed’s balance sheet will be auditable, including all credit facilities, all securities purchase programs, and all agreements with foreign central banks.  To calm fears that we might be trying to substitute congressional action for Fed mischief in tinkering with monetary policy, we agreed to a 180 day lag time before details of the Fed’s market actions are released and included language to state explicitly that nothing in the amendment should be construed as interference in or dictation of monetary policy by Congress or the GAO.  This left no reasonable objections standing and the amendment passed with a vote of 43 to 26.

This was a major triumph for transparency and accountability in government.  With unprecedented turmoil in the financial markets, the people are demanding to know and understand the extent of the Federal Reserve’s involvement in the creation of out-of-control business cycles, who they are helping, and how.  We need information.  The excuses for not giving out this information are flimsy at best, and the passage of this amendment is a major step to finally getting at the truth.

Of course I could not have done this without the help and support of many other members who have been strong allies in this fight.  Having over 300 cosponsors was obviously helpful.

However, as great as this victory is, we have to remember that this amendment is attached to a bill that would give sweeping new powers to the Federal Reserve. The Fed has taken its mandate to maintain stable prices and full employment and used its immense power to help elite friends at the great expense of everyone else.  The answer is not to increase their powers and ability to interfere in the economy, but that is what the legislation will do.  It is a disaster waiting to happen, and unfortunately it looks as if it will pass.

At least with the Audit the Fed amendment attached to the bill, the Fed will not be able to do its destructive work in secret. The people will know exactly who the beneficiaries are of this immoral system of money management.

http://www.house.gov/htbin/blog_inc?BLOG,tx14_paul,blog,999,All,Item%20not%20found,ID=091123_3603,TEMPLATE=postingdetail.shtml

888-322-1414

socialism is awesome!
fdr was socialists.
thomas jefferson was a pre-socialist.
jesus was a socialist.
capitalism is responsible for the current crisis, which occured after bush let wall street do everything the wanted for the past eight years.
capitalists financed the nazis.
capitalism was responsible for hitler, just read about all those nazi industrialists like fritz thyssen and henry ford.
and if you like capitalist now you like hitler.

>>15
You're a bullshitter.