Free markets: overpriced

One of the most incredible things about public discourse in the U.S. is the persistence of so-called “free market ideology.” No matter how much damage the spread of this idea causes, we stick by it like faithful soldiers, and look for new areas to spread it to. This is an old point in some circles, but every time we have a big policy debate, as we are now over healthcare, this idea runs rampant. Democrats and Republicans trip over each other to defend it.

For the most part, the idea of “free markets” has lost its meaning. It has become, like so many things, a vague talking point with little substantive meaning and great visceral appeal to the average person. There are few code words that connote free market ideology but often serve to make it more palatable or understandable to the average person. These most common of these code words are choice and competition. Choice and competition are fine, and one cannot deny the positive power of markets, when they are regulated. But free markets are anything but free. The demand for free market ideology certainly matches the supply, but it is a defective product.

To some people, free market ideology is a religion that is almost as ridiculous as normal religion. The free market used to be largely confined to the market as typically understood – private enterprise. What bothers me is the general proliferation of free market ideology to all areas of our politics, culture, and discourse.

To what extent must sprawling free market ideology fuck everything up before we recognize it for the failure that it is?

Free market ideology has decayed our federal, state, and local tax systems, based on the idea of benefits that would “trickle down” from the wealthy to the average American. As a result, productivity and profits have soared, while real wages for virtually all people have been flat for 30 years. Concurrently, declining revenues erode public services, and our deficit and debt soar to unbelievable heights.

Deregulated free markets have failed to lower costs in the energy, pharmaceutical, and telecommunications industries.

We rely on the free market for our retirement security. Roughly half of all U.S. workers have or will have no retirement income beyond Social Security.

Free market principles have corrupted our political system almost beyond repair, as these principles are used to justify our campaign finance system and lobbying laws.

We have even allowed free market ideology to creep into public education, where charter schools, set up to provide choice and competition in low-performing school districts, have proved no more effective (and sometimes less effective) than regular public schools.

Based on free market promises of greater efficiency and lower costs, we have privatized our prisons and our military. There is absolutely no evidence of any positive benefits.

Under the banner of free markets, we have permitted the rapid destruction of our planet and its resources. As a result, we cannot drink our water, our food is tainted, our wildlife is dying, and our very existence as a species is threatened.

Market ideology hasn’t even worked in the fucking market. The deregulation and non-enforcement of financial markets, combined with human greed, has literally destroyed our economy.

And finally, of course, free market ideology has failed us in healthcare, where the private insurance market has achieved blockbuster profits by denying care and promoting waste. In return, Americans' health is among the worst in the developed world.

So, here we are. The ideology of “free markets” has destroyed our economy, our healthcare, our public services, and our political system. And we still love it. We are either supremely ignorant or depraved masochists.

Some healthy tips

A few points on the healthcare debate that I don’t hear often enough, if at all. These are not necessarily the most important points, nor the sexiest, and I cannot say that I follow every piece of coverage on this issue, but I must wonder why they don’t come up more often:

As I asked in my last post, where is the evidence that the federal government cannot administer large social programs effectively? I pointed out that 2/3 of all federal spending goes to the military/defense, Medicare/Medicaid, and Social Security. All receive generally high levels of support, and even higher support among participants. If you also consider that another 9% goes to pay interest on federal debt, this means that 75 cents out of every federal dollar is spent on very successful (though certainly imperfect) large social programs. I want the anti-reform goofies to be directly asked which federal programs they are referring to when they preach the “incompetent federal government” doctrine. Name one federal social program of any significant size that is a failure. If they do, compare the overall cost of that program or programs to that of the programs listed above. Calculate the ratio. Inquire further as to whether this is an acceptable success rate.

On the issue of costs, why don’t I hear more people pointing out the simple, irrefutable fact that private health insurance companies typically earn profits of 20-30%, and that these costs are inherently saved in any federal program. That is monumental savings, and it is a direct result of the inherent properties of a public program. Now, of course, the federal government doesn’t directly assume these costs under the current system, as it would under any public program, but we all pay them, and we all know it. And to whom do these profits go? We all know that too.

There is a core anti-reform talking point that takes the following form: “Government bureaucrats will be making decisions about your health care.” This one amazes me. Who makes these decisions now? “Bureaucrats” employed by private health insurance companies. The talking point assumes that corporate “bureaucrats” are preferably to government “bureaucrats.” Show me one shred of evidence, or present one cogent argument, as to why we should prefer the former over the latter.

This may be old news, but it is incredible how “conservatives” continually mis-portray every issue in terms of their core prejudices. The most general example – simple opposition to expending government – is, in my view, a relevant and acceptable framing of the issue. However, many of the core objections to health care reform are forced, manufactured versions of other issues. This includes abortion (federal dollars paying for abortions); immigration (coverage of undocumented immigrants); and assisted suicide (“death panels”). This phenomenon has manifested itself even more obscenely, as the health care debate has somehow become a forum for gun rights. Let’s talk about everything except the issue. It is only a matter of time before race comes into the picture.

I have heard this one, but it is very strange that one of the basic objections to the “public option” is that it will represent “unfair” competition for private insurers, thereby forcing them out of business. According to market doctrine, this will occur as a result of greater efficiency and satisfaction on the part of the public plan. Please explain to me why this is a bad thing. Should we protect the free market even when it benefits everyone not to do so?

Can we please stop blaming the declining possibilities for reform on anyone other than ourselves. I hear that the lies and manufactured protests from conservatives have hindered reform. I’ve heard Obama blamed for not boiling down the incredible complexity of health care reform into four or five talking points that contain ten or fewer words each. I’ve heard people blame Republicans, blue dog Democrats, lobbyists, and corporations. I’ve heard everyone blamed except the actual culprits: the chronically uninformed, apathetic and self-absorbed American people. It is our fault. Stop pretending that it isn’t.

Quickly: is government the problem?

The next time you hear someone argue that they don't want "government-run" anything, ask them what they think about the following programs:

The U.S. military and defense (including veteran care)
Social Security
Medicare/Medicaid

Together, they account for almost two-thirds of all federal spending. Are they failures?

Citing Downturn, Al-Qaeda to Lay Off 5,000 Terrorists

Citing the global financial crisis and lower-than-expected fourth quarter earnings, Al-Queda announced today that it will lay off roughly 5,000 workers from its Waziristan location, with the cuts concentrated in the terrorist organization's customer service and e-commerce divisions.

In an official press release, AQ's Chief Financial Officer noted that the worldwide economic crisis has increased the cost of core goods such as dirigibles. However, he emphasized that the primary cause of Al-Queda's financial problems are skyrocketing costs of members' pension benefits.