Why ObamaCare Can't Work

[mawilson 2,133]

No, I'm saying that the free-market is what occurs naturally in an economic environment without coercive intervention, in which it behooves companies to best serve consumers.

I think what Pike is saying is that

1) people being experimented on in third-world countries are not consumers of their products, and

2) the actual consumers of their products do not boycott these companies for their unethical practices

and behaviour in third-world countries because they are either not aware of it or simply couldn't care less.

Edited August 2, 2009 by mawilson

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

To be clear, we've defined this exploitation as "a coerced imposition of force over voluntary exchanges", I assume that's a fair estimate, and you'd agree.

Therefore, this exploitation can be sourced directly on the company or corporation--as in the supposed cases of the Chinese milk incident and the non-voluntary drug tests in India--or, by government decree--as in the cases of government/corporation monopolized grants.

There is a fundamental difference between the two. Other things being equal, one is correctable by the voluntary exchange economy, and the other is not.

Voluntary markets tend to make relatively quick work of fraudulent behavior (which is for our purposes, synonymous with "exploitation".) Of course, that's not to say it doesn't occur. But in an entrepreneurship-fostered free market, fraudulence seems to be a sure fire strategy for shoring up a prospective business. Frankly, it's more profitable to be legitimate. If this were untrue, then Wal-Mart would advertise 1 cent prices on everything, and then once you've swiped your VISA, you notice a charge of $100. Sure, they could realize a small exploitative profit, but their company image would be forever scarred. There are exoribant disincentives to run a fraudulent enterprise.

The government, foreign or domestic, OTOH, faces no market pressure whatsoever. They can force people to make certain exchanges, either by elimination of competion, or fear of reprisal. Granted, certain businesses have taken advantage of this partnership. These companies are the ones that cannot realize a profit in a system of voluntary exchange. For if they could, there would be no need to invest in the government.

I do understand that government exists, and has an inalienable symbiosis with these "weaker" companies. However, that's no excuse to blame the free-market. In no way does it foster an "unparelled tyranny", as I hope I've proved.

To be clear, some companies may commit abhorrent and fraudulent acts in western nations and impoverished nations, but the market punishes this, whilst the government reinforces it.

But all you're saying here is that in an idealised set of theoretical circumstances that its in a companies best interest to behave ethically.

No, I'm saying that the free-market is what occurs naturally in an economic environment without coercive intervention, in which it behooves companies to best serve consumers.

It's not some pie-in-the-sky theory.

But... you're still relying on an idealised set of circumstances to facilitate this that don't exist in the real world. Its basically a high level hypothesis about what should happen, if certain conditions are present.

You're also making an assumption that the local needs of consumers with the economic power (i.e. the rich folks in developed countries) are somehow equal to those in poorer countries to prevent anyone from being victimised or exploited. HIV as we know is prolific throughout Africa, what isn't necessarily known is that the drugs that have been developed to treat it and slow the onset of full-blown AIDS, while being tested in Africa are not sold there - because many of those countries are so poor that the drugs are only affordable to roughly 2% of sufferers.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No, I'm saying that the free-market is what occurs naturally in an economic environment without coercive intervention, in which it behooves companies to best serve consumers.

I think what Pike is saying is that

1) people being experimented on in third-world countries are not consumers of their products, and

2) the actual consumers of their products do not boycott these companies for their unethical practices

and behaviour in third-world countries because they are either not aware of it or simply couldn't care less.

Yes - that's it.

Its not only the medical industry that does this - but things like food production as well. One of the worst things I heard of recently was that there are actually high producing agricultural farms in Sudan, yet very litte (if any) of the food produced there is used to support the indigenous population. Instead it is pre-paid by and exported to MENA countries like Saudi Arabia and Jordan.