Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rich people benefit from the poor being poor?

Rate this topic


Black Wolf

Recommended Posts

By the same token you could then say that rich people are injured by the poor. They suffer by not being able to sell their products to those who cannot afford them.

An wealthy owner of a Yacht building company does benefit from their being lots of poor people and dwindling amounts of rich people.

I'm going to start a business, and make sure that nobody is able to afford my stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Does this claim have any validity?

This is a Marxist theory, a theory that the top wealth in any system benefit from the poor being poor.

Examples of this theory include:

- Rich people benefit from the poor being ignorant

- Rich people benefit from the poor being desperate

Rich people are rich because of their innate abilities and superior virtue. They don't need"poor people", who're poor because of their stupidity or innate disabilities, to be anything.

Also, there is no such thing as the "people". Its all individuals. There is no such thing as society. these are important logical considerations before answering such questions. Marxists, because of their innate evilness, conjure up hocus pocus theory to create fascism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rich people are rich because of their innate abilities and superior virtue. They don't need"poor people", who're poor because of their stupidity or innate disabilities, to be anything.

Also, there is no such thing as the "people". Its all individuals. There is no such thing as society. these are important logical considerations before answering such questions. Marxists, because of their innate evilness, conjure up hocus pocus theory to create fascism.

This is so immature, I can't imagine how this person manages to reach up to touch the keyboard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rich people do benefit from the poor being poor, perhaps not as a causal link, but they do causally benefit from people being uninformed or misinformed about their products. New York City restaurants for example balked at the idea of mandated published nutritional info on all menus. There is an administrative headache for sure, but part of the concern is that they don't want the extremely fattening nutritional content being exposed. I'm personally happy to pay $1 - $2 more to order food at a restaurant when I can see the nutritional info.

So what? The restaurants are personally not happy to provide that info for you , for one or two dollars. So take a hike, you have no right to make them give you anything. You have the right to not eat at restaurants that don't.

How do you think the healthcare industry is so huge right now? You can bet that lack of pricing visibility contributed a great deal to it. You don't know how much a procedure will cost, and there are too many people in the healthcare delivery chain to muddle the water. Some people's jobs are just for the purpose of preventing you from knowing the pricing. And drug companies and insurance providers are filthy rich because of this.

Some of the things that are lies, in your post:

1. The healthcare industry is "too big".

2. There is a lack of pricing visibility. This is silly, prices are perfectly visible.

3. The big, obvious lie: "Drug companies and insurance providers have higher profits than other industries."

Actually, the healthcare industry is as big as it is because of the never before seen prosperity in the free world. Now, of course, that freedom is being attacked, by an ideology that promotes class envy, and considers prosperity, and the never before seen ammount and quality of healthcare these prosperous people get "too much".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what? The restaurants are personally not happy to provide that info for you , for one or two dollars. So take a hike, you have no right to make them give you anything. You have the right to not eat at restaurants that don't.

You are right about my not having a right to make them give me that info.

Some of the things that are lies, in your post:

This is going to be fun!

1. The healthcare industry is "too big".

I never said that, buddy. Yawn.

2. There is a lack of pricing visibility. This is silly, prices are perfectly visible.

Okay, how much does an MRI scan cost you at Kaiser Permanente in New York? Call your HMO and ask them how much it will cost. Try to get them to send you a price list and you'll get laughed at. They will answer with "it depends on your copay, the specific Kaiser office you're going to, etc." Ask them if you will actually get the MRI scan if you request it to be paid under your insurance program. They will answer "it depends on your past claim history, an approval process, etc." You have a chance of not even receiving this procedure, even if your doctor requests it.

What about a PPO? What about under Medicaid? What about under Medicare? One reason that Government Pricing (Average Manufacturer's Price, Average Sales Price, Non-Federal Average Manufacturer's Price, etc) has been mandated by the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services is the lack of price transparency that has been created by drug manufacturers.

The easiest way to have perfect price visibility is to have no insurance and a great relationship with a doctor who is willing to give you a published price list for his procedures. Most people don't get that luxury. So they're left to deal with the above.

3. The big, obvious lie: "Drug companies and insurance providers have higher profits than other industries."

Do you know the profits of a drug company? Their ROI on an R&D'd drug is like 400%. Now, things like increased generic pricing competition, class action law suits, regulatory changes, etc, erode those profits, but ultimately drug companies are crazy profitable. I'm not going to cite statistics here, but the external consultant to full time employee ratios within drug companies speaks to their bank roll.

The insurance industry is a separate animal. Their margins are thinner than drug manufactuers', but their entire business model fundamentally rests on taking you money and not paying you for care. That's how they make money. In most cases, their policies grant people the care they need, but by design their purpose is to take in money and not pay it out.

And before you throw in the card about "competition will stop them," ask yourself - can you really switch between an Aetna or a Cigna or a Kaiser or a Bravo Health? What about if you're unemployed? What if you're on COBRA? First of all, there are few options to choose from in a geographical location. You have a choice to move to a place with an insurance provider you like, but you don't have the ability to invoke other insurance providers to become available.

But one of the above discussion matters anyway, because the fact that there exist insurance brokers that connect individual beneficiaries with actual insurance providers to navigate through all the paperwork proves the lack of visibility.

Actually, the healthcare industry is as big as it is because of the never before seen prosperity in the free world. Now, of course, that freedom is being attacked, by an ideology that promotes class envy, and considers prosperity, and the never before seen ammount and quality of healthcare these prosperous people get "too much".

Needless conjecture and non-sequiturs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And drug companies and insurance providers are filthy rich because of this.

Just some food for thought for you guys.

I'm with Jake on this.

First, I'm happy they are rich, if you say they are. They are there to help individuals get well. If they had dying customers, well, they would have bigger problems.

Now, as for rich, what are you calling rich? Their volume or their profit margin?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The insurance industry is a separate animal. Their margins are thinner than drug manufactuers', but their entire business model fundamentally rests on taking you money and not paying you for care. That's how they make money. In most cases, their policies grant people the care they need, but by design their purpose is to take in money and not pay it out.

I'm fine with that. If you're not, same as before: take a hike. The only entity forcing you to have insurance is the government. Insurance companies offer a service, and as far as they are concerned, you can take it or leave it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New York City restaurants for example balked at the idea of mandated published nutritional info on all menus. There is an administrative headache for sure, but part of the concern is that they don't want the extremely fattening nutritional content being exposed. I'm personally happy to pay $1 - $2 more to order food at a restaurant when I can see the nutritional info.
Of course they should balk at that. And it is not because they assume their customers are too ignorant to realize that bacon & cheese stuffed potato skins are fattening. They balk because the government is making unwarranted demands on their business. If their customers demand nutritional information, then it is the right of the business owner whether or not to provide that information, and logically in their best interest to provide that for their customers. The customers always have the right to be patrons of the establishment or not. Nobody is forced to eat at any particular restaurant... yet, are they?

I happen to WISH that all restaurants provided this information. But I would never suggest a law mandating it. It is mandated for chain restaurants out here in Los Angeles to have the info. I like to track my calories consumed and calories burned each day, so I tend to go to places that I know have this information. Or I ask for it. Like you, I also would be OK with knowing that part of the price of my meal is including the hassle of them keeping track of and providing this information. But that is a much different sentiment than demanding it as a right for the greater good. (I must assume that you would agree this should be voluntary and not mandated by law, right?)

But specifically to your point of this example, this does not show how business benefits from people being poor. You're using poor in the sense of having less knowledge, I know, but as I described above, in my case the business' benefits from me being "rich" with information. If you use take the term "poor" to be used more traditionally and refer to people without a lot of money, then obviously mandating such extra costs associated with providing this information will necessarily push up the prices of their products and negatively affect the poor.

Wealth and prosperity can be created in the free market where people trade freely based on their own decisions according to their own self interests. Any encumbrance to that is what causes distortions. In a free market, the rich don't get rich by making other people poor. People get to make themselves rich based on their own effort, labor, talent... and yeah, some luck thrown in there too. They can go poor by the lack of those same causes as well.

3. The big, obvious lie: "Drug companies and insurance providers have higher profits than other industries."

Actually, the healthcare industry is as big as it is because of the never before seen prosperity in the free world. Now, of course, that freedom is being attacked, by an ideology that promotes class envy, and considers prosperity, and the never before seen ammount and quality of healthcare these prosperous people get "too much".

This (3) isn't a point that should even matter. (whether a lie or not... as worded, it is not a lie because, yeah, they have higher profits than "other industries". That is not to say that they have [unfairly?!?] high profits)

Though I agree with what he says here, Jake doesn't need to justify the bigness of any industry. There is nothing wrong with profit. We hear the opposite claimed all the time and it is an out and out attack on capitalism. Profits are the point. Profits are good. Every business and person works precisely for profits.

"Obscene profits"

"Windfall profits"

"Outrageous profits"

These are things said by people philosophically opposed to capitalism. That is what should be pointed out. If one understands capitalism and free markets then you will cheer big profits. That means more investment, more competition in that field for innovation, more growth... And that actually leads to the product being more affordable. It is when a third (non-productive) party can step in by force (read Government) and can make demands and distort the free trade of products between free individuals that causes the types of twisted and complex issues we see in, say, the health care industry.

Anyway... Below is a chart of profits by industry. (source - I cannot personally vouch for the percentile accuracy, but I have no reason to doubt it)

Look at the #1 evil industry. "Hmm" says the government official... "Maybe we should put a special tax on soft drinks, eh?" Welcome to Atlas Shrugged.

saupload_profits.png

But as I said, one shouldn't look at that chart and think that the people at the top are somehow "the bad guys".

Edited by freestyle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're all in agreement on an individual level - no one has the right to make you do something you don't want to do.

That said, insurance is one area that I would make a strong case for that everyone should have for a number of reasons:

- You can get other people sick if you choose to not go to a hospital when you're sick. You're directly contributing to other people's lack of productivity in doing so. From an individual perspective, people should individually make judgments on whether they'll get other people sick if they are sick, but many times people don't make the right judgments. I can't tell you how many times I've gotten sick because of other people who didn't choose to withdraw from society during their recovery.

- Insurance is on principle a vehicle to control costs over time. In a perfect world, you keep paying money to an insurance company, and you get sick / cash out the insurance at some points so that you are able to exactly equate out to what you put in. In practice, it's a lot more back and forth to actually achieve that goal, and a lot of slow down before you are physically able to get care, if at all. Having a universal healthcare system that's designed correctly and avoids a lot of the administrative issues will greatly alleviate that. The trick, as always, is to design and implement that big system correctly.

- You drive down overall healthcare costs by increasing the population pool, and mandatory insurance when you're young and healthy will contribute to lower healthcare costs overall because of economies of scale and cost sharing.

First, I'm happy they are rich, if you say they are. They are there to help individuals get well. If they had dying customers, well, they would have bigger problems.

Now, as for rich, what are you calling rich? Their volume or their profit margin?

You... you serious? Look at the post right above yours.

*EDIT* Hey, new stuff from freestyle! I'll respond to that after some meetings.

Edited by Elysium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You... you serious? Look at the post right above yours.

Exactly.

What have you decided is "too much" profit margin? 10%? 20%? 50%? 3%?

If one doesn't like the drug because one feels it costs too much or the company makes too much profit, I would recommend that one should voluntarily choose not purchase it. Alternatively, one should develop their own or put their money into a company that can develop one for oneself and others to generate the profit or the appropriate level of sacrifice that one desires.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're all in agreement on an individual level - no one has the right to make you do something you don't want to do.
I don't think we are. You claim this and then follow it up with "that said..." and begin speaking in collectivist terms.

Having a universal healthcare system that's designed correctly and avoids a lot of the administrative issues will greatly alleviate that. The trick, as always, is to design and implement that big system correctly.

- You drive down overall healthcare costs by increasing the population pool, and mandatory insurance when you're young and healthy will contribute to lower healthcare costs overall because of economies of scale and cost sharing.

No. First, the trick is not "how to do it" it is "WHO DECIDES". Your answer above is most definitely not the individual or private businesses. Your answer is quite clearly, the government.

Let me ask you some simple logic questions. In this Universal Healthcare System you are imagining, what is the EXACT percentage of profit to be allowed for? Who decides whether those profits go to doctors, employees or RESEARCH and INNOVATION? What is that perfect balance that we can trust only one entity to be responsible for?

And second: Why does this need to be spread across the entire nation? If this closed Universal Healthcare System will work so well for everyone, then why can it not first be proven in, say, a small town or a single large city somewhere? Or maybe even an entire single state? What is the magic number that you need for this Universal Healthcare system to work? 100,000? 3,000,000? 25,000,000? 300,000,000?

Answer those tricky little questions first, and then the "trick" of how to implement that big of a system correctly becomes almost comical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're all in agreement on an individual level - no one has the right to make you do something you don't want to do.

- Insurance is on principle a vehicle to control costs over time. In a perfect world, you keep paying money to an insurance company, and you get sick / cash out the insurance at some points so that you are able to exactly equate out to what you put in. In practice, it's a lot more back and forth to actually achieve that goal, and a lot of slow down before you are physically able to get care, if at all. Having a universal healthcare system that's designed correctly and avoids a lot of the administrative issues will greatly alleviate that. The trick, as always, is to design and implement that big system correctly.

- You drive down overall healthcare costs by increasing the population pool, and mandatory insurance when you're young and healthy will contribute to lower healthcare costs overall because of economies of scale and cost sharing.

Again you contrdict yourself.

You say "We're all in agreement on an individual level - no one has the right to make you do something you don't want to do."

and then you advocate mandatory (forced) cost sharing.

You cannot believe in forced participation in a program of "risk sharing" with others and individual rights at the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is immature about it? Can't you point out where I am wrong instead of insulting. I am still a learner.

Your post was rather hyperbolic, especially where you referred to Marxism as "innate evilness". It's not really evil, just a flawed belief that is doomed to fail.

Edited by Black Wolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...mandatory insurance when you're young and healthy...

One last thing I forgot to point out:

A young man says, "No. I will not be forced to buy health insurance. I will not pay." Do you fine him? "No. I will not pay the fine."

Now what do you suggest?

"We're all in agreement on an individual level - no one has the right to make you do something you don't want to do."

Apparently we are not operating by the same principals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Your post was rather hyperbolic, especially where you referred to Marxism as "innate evilness". It's not really evil, just a flawed belief that is doomed to fail.

Let me just clairfy that I in no way believe communism, marxism, or socialism are noble efforts. I also don't believe them to be evil. Just an immature belief system founded on a young adult's emotion, as opposed to an adult's reason

Edited by Black Wolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me just clairfy that I in no way believe communism, marxism, or socialism are noble efforts. I also don't believe them to be evil. Just an immature belief system founded on a young adult's emotion, as opposed to an adult's reason
Well, one might say that of the young adults who hold the view. However, what about the old geezers? And, further, what about the old geezers who hold the view despite some knowledge of the problems with communism or similar movements. A hundred people can call themselves communists and yet be at various levels of good and evil. Specifically, people like Lenin and Stalin were very evil.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, one might say that of the young adults who hold the view. However, what about the old geezers? And, further, what about the old geezers who hold the view despite some knowledge of the problems with communism or similar movements. A hundred people can call themselves communists and yet be at various levels of good and evil. Specifically, people like Lenin and Stalin were very evil.

Then perhaps they are old immature geezers =P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then perhaps they are old immature geezers =P
Do you think "evil" is an invalid concept? Or, do you think it describes something in real life? If the latter, what types of examples move from being described as immature to being described as evil?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think "evil" is an invalid concept? Or, do you think it describes something in real life? If the latter, what types of examples move from being described as immature to being described as evil?

I honestly never gave it much thought, but I always believed that evil is a desire to intentionally harm someone.

Wanting to "re-distribute the wealth", for example, may not be intended to harm the rich. One could think "Oh, just tax him enough so that he can keep his hard-earned wealth", but use that money to fund the working man's chance at success. It would never occur to this person that it is not the government's job to establish the "Right way" to spend your money, and the "Wrong way" to spend you money. It is harmful, however, because even if the rich can still enjoy their success to some extent, the government is forcing (not even their, other people's values) on them, while possibly not even using that money for what the liberals want. If anything, taxes are what inhibits the kind of "Fairness" progressives want, because it eventually becomes a government monopoly on "care". Individuals who care for another will have less incentive to start a charity, because less people will make donations. So, instead of people voluntarily caring for one another, we will have government obligations to care for another, which defeats the purpose entirely.

A lot can go wrong with forcefully "re-distributing the wealth", but that never occurs to the simple-minded.

Edited by Black Wolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot can go wrong with forcefully "re-distributing the wealth", but that never occurs to the simple-minded.
Not sure who these "simple minded" people are. Do you mean people who are not very strongly in favor of one philosophy or another? It is one thing to think thoughts in a dorm room, and quite another thing to actually take the long series of steps to come to power as a Marxist rules. People like Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Chavez or Castro cannot be called "simple minded" by any non-political measure of their intelligence and wit. Do you consider such people to be evil? Or do they too get excused?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"That which negates, opposes, or destroys the life of a rational being is the evil."

Marxism certainly IS evil. Whether Marxists have an "innate evilness," though, and whether dollardoctrinaire is an honest learner as he claims to be, are different matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...