Posted by
Andrews on Thursday, July 09, 2009 1:33:57 AM
In my last post, "
The Devil is in the Definitions (And Assumptions)", and elsewhere, I have mentioned the argument often used by advocates of socialized medicine that the capitalist system is "inefficient", and by removing those inefficiencies, they can save money and provide better services.This argument is, in itself, just a variation on the old socialist argument that advertising, or profits, or any other aspect of capitalism, is just "waste" and that, by eliminating shareholders and advertising and the like, socialism will inevitably be more efficient.
I have refuted this before by pointing out that capitalism required profits to function("
Misunderstanding Profits"), that government management was less efficient than capitalism( "
Government Efficiency"), and that high costs were almost always artifacts of government intervention("
High Cost of Medical Care"). However, those sort of abstract arguments often fall on deaf ears, so let me make two concrete applications of the socialist argument.
First, let me say I hope you like McDonald's. After all, there is no rational reason to have more than one type of restaurant, and having only one style of food to produce, ship, cook and serve allows for much more efficient delivery. As McDonald's seems to be the most popular restaurant, it should clearly be the one model for all eateries.
But, some will say, in the case of medicine, maybe that is a good thing. Maybe we have too many frills, and everyone should get McDonald's-style care, good enough but with few amenities.
So let me add, I hope you liked the Model T. After all, what caused the model T to fail? Ford had no interest in improving the original design, he didn't even like to offer other colors. It was only when other manufacturers started to offer improvements, "frills" if you like, that he introduced improvements. And that is the model of industry, today's "frills" available only to the rich are tomorrow's commonplace. DVD players were once rich men's toys, now many houses have several. At one time MRIs were expensive enough that almost no one received one, or they were used only for the most intractable cases, today they are routine.
But eliminating competition, as well as inequalities in income and access, destroys that model, and also destroys the incentive to innovate. If you doubt that, look at the Soviet auto industry. Car designs from the late 40's and early 50's were still in production when the USSR collapsed. Innovations were rare, and the few that came were not only stolen from the west, but by and large were ten or twenty years behind the west. Without competition to drive innovation, technology lags.
So, before you argue that the capitalist system is "inefficient" be sure you look at what those inefficiencies drive A similar error would be looking at the human form and calling the reproductive system superfluous, forgetting that individuals may not need it, but the entire species does. In both cases, the immediate "savings" will condemn you in the long term.