Market economies and social antagonisms, remember that markets are "games" with more than one player, and, because it's Friday, fried cheese.
Market economies will always lead to social antagonisms.
I heard the above in listening to an audiobook history of the Soviet Union. One of the main themes in this professor's history was an exploration of why it is that the Russian empire became communist.
I.e. why didn't the Russian empire go from monarchy to democracy with a market economy instead of becoming totalitarian communist?
One of the things the professor repeatedly noted was the quote at the top of this post: market economies will always lead to social antagonisms. This was used to help answer part of the question.
**As a quick note, I'd like to mention that communism (as practiced in the Soviet Union and elsewhere) was also something that led to social antagonisms. It was just not discussed because, when it was, you went to the gulag. That's a whole other post, however.
He is right. When you have a market economy, you will always have people that succeed and those that don't. It's completely natural and human (whether by their own fault or by circumstance) to look at the "haves" and think that something must be wrong: after all, I'm just as virtuous as the rich man, why am I not as well-rewarded?
This idea reminds me of something that is oft-quoted from the Bible, but just as oft-incompletely-quoted.
Read the entire thing below. I copied the entirety of Matthew 26:6-13:
"Aware of this, Jesus said to them, 'Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me. When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. Truly I tell you, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her.'”
People always quote the first part, that is, that the poor will always be with you. They just as often forget the second part, the part that says what are you going to do when I'm (Jesus) not here?
The reason that popped into my mind when the professor talked about social antagonism and market economies is that we are fighting each other over the wrong question. We will always have winners and losers, we will always have successes and failures. This will happen regardless of whichever policy or system we adopt. The question therefore isn't necessarily always "what's the best economic/governmental system if we wish to avoid separating into haves and have nots?"
The question instead becomes "what can we do to make as many haves as we can and avoid as many have nots as we can?" The point is that we need to talk about what we DO with and for those that don't succeed.
Do we give them handouts? Do we work to give them opportunities? Do we take from those that have had both luck and work ethic to give to those that haven't had luck and/or haven't chosen to work? How do we balance things?
I am always curious to hear other thoughts than my own, so I want to invite you to chime in. What do you think? Comments are open.
One way, not the only way, but one way to think about markets is to consider them in the context of a game. With this framework, you can consider various likely outcomes to differing conditions.
When I think about things like the article below, I truly wonder if the Democrats running this state understand that there are more "players" in the game than just the government and consumers.
To be specific, I wonder if they consider the fact that insurers have moves to make too.
Let's back up for some context. A little ways back our state passed a law that required private health insurers to develop and sell a health insurance plan on the single-payer/small-group health insurance market called the Colorado Option.
The state dictated what would be on the plan and it also dictates price targets for these plans.** I attached a screenshot from the first article linked below to give you an idea of the price targets.
The problem, as the article says, is that the companies are struggling to meet this number. There is more context in the article (including the counterpoint offered by others which is equally important to read if you want to consider yourself fully informed).
This is what I think our state's policymakers (such as both the elected officials who passed the law and the bureaucrats like the director of the CO Division of Insurance) are missing a critical piece.
Our economy is a giant multiplayer game with complex interactions among all the multiple players, the healthcare markets (screwed up as I admit they are) are a microcosm of this larger game.
Pressures from inflation, providers, consumer choice, and etc. all add up to drive the strategies and realities that health insurance providers recognize. The way our government is insinuating itself into the market seem to only countenance a simpler reality, however.
You see, those greedy insurers just want more money. That's why they are being recalcitrant about meeting our price targets!
Our policymakers seem to fail to recognize one other reality about this "game". I don't know if they recognize that this is not a game insurers are required to play.
Health insurance companies can put their cards down and walk away. Some already have, and if our state pushes harder, more will.
Regardless of your thoughts on the wisdom of price controls and government interference, I ask you this: who does that help then?
**In addition to likely rigging the market to push this so that the plan would be a success--see the second link below if you've forgotten.
https://coloradosun.com/2023/03/24/colorado-option-health-insurance-price-targets/
https://coloradosun.com/2022/12/02/colorado-option-insurance-connect-for-health/
Ah the beauty of crispy, fried cheese ...
We've reached the last post of the day and so you know what that means, something for fun and not related to politics. It's also going to be the last one for a day. I'll be away from my computer tomorrow.
My wife's side of the family has some Cypriot influence: her dad is from Cyprus and her folks go back there pretty regularly. When they come back to the states, they always bring some halloumi with them.
Halloumi (see the link below for more detail) is a type of Cypriot cheese. It's a softish, but not young or fresh, salty cheese. On its own it's pretty good, but fry it up and it becomes magic.
There's no fanciness here: just take and slice the halloumi and put it in a dry, non-stick skillet over medium to medium high heat. Brown it as much as you like (I like mine well done with lots of color 'cause color = flavor), and serve it up.
I attached a screengrab from the internet below to show you.
If you want to try the real thing and don't have a Cyprus connection, I know that it can often be found in Halal or Mediterranean markets.
Unless you have blood pressure problems necessitating a low salt diet, I highly recommend it!
Have a good Friday. Back at it Sunday!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloumi