Explaining Economics to the Left

Here is the post that started the conversation, screen names have been changed to avoid offense:

DB - Explain not to good. As far as I see it nothing has worked to good for the people. Its all for the big money people. Just like right now. Its O K to bail out the big boys, but then when it comes time to help the unemployed. Oh my that cost to much money. The G O P cries where is the money going to come from. Just like the bailout print it.

ME - When you say health care is a good idea for people, you are trying to force your values on others. Health insurance may be a good idea for you, but for an individual wealthy enough to self-insure it is not. Others, young enough to enjoy good health may decide that, rather than paying insurance premiums they would like to build their investment portfolio. Whenever collectivism is brought into the picture (and that includes group insurance), individuals lose sight of the actual costs and tend to overuse a system. If you have a $10 copay you are more likely to visit the dr. with every sniffle or cough. If you are paying for those visits directly, you are more likely to tough it out with over the counter remedies. That over use, more than any other factor, has led us to the increasing health care costs and rationed treatment.

and....The current situation with employer provided health insurance (which I've already shown to be bad) was brought about by government interventionism. During WWII, the imperial federal government decided to freeze wages. Employers, unable to offer increased wages to lure employees, turned to "benefit packages". This is the law of unintended consequences fully at work. This is the one law government intrusion into individual liberty always obeys.

DB -
Mattie I read the same thing in your post. Actually the 10.00 copay you speak of, is not true. Everybody does not run to the Dr. I never have and really do not like having to go now. Do I think medical bills are way to high, yes I do. I know its the capitalist systems way. People in the medical world are taking advantage of the present system just like people who take advantage of medicaid. There is nothing wrong in helping out the people in the lower income of this country. Just because some ones brain does not function as good as yours, is no reason to condemn them. Some work just as hard as you. If the big boss man did not try and pay cheap wages ,then the poor would be able to buy the same insurance as you, but that is not the case. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Why is that?

ME - What you describe is not free market capitalism. True cost containment comes when individuals, paying directly, make buying decisions that make the most financial sense. If there were "food insurance" where you paid a certain "premium", but could eat whatever you wanted; most people would certainly bypass the beenie weenies for steak and lobster (this already happens with the EBT system). This is essentially what happens under "cover everything" health care. If we had the same type coverage on our autos, paying for every oil change and wiper replacement, no one could afford to drive. In a truly free market, the consumers set and control the prices. As far as giving to the poor, that is an individual prerogative. There is no constitutional mandate to do so. You say you are not a religious man, yet you proseletyze (preach) that we SHOULD help others. That is a religious ideal that you are free to hold, but prohibited by law (and liberty) from forcing upon others.

DB - Mattie, Do you really believe all that propaganda. I surly hope not

ME - DB, I made it back quickly. I surely believe what I wrote...history bears it out. Let's try this. There are two brothers, Duke and Bubba. Bubba is a talented woodworker who produces hiqh quality hand made guitars. Taking into account the cost of materials and the value of his time, Bubba takes his guitars to market at a set price. No one is forced to purchase these guitars, it is up to the quality of Bubba's work, his sales and service skills, and the PRICE of the guitars to determine if they will sell. So, Bubba's guitars begin to fly out of his store. The demand for the guitars creates an order backlog. Is it GREED )....for Bubba to raise the price of his guitars to a level that balances the demand against his ability to supply them? Absolutely not. That is the free market.

Duke, on the other hand, doesn't do as well. He is a hard worker, but makes poor decisions - even refusing to invest his time and money in his brother's guitar enterprise. Duke finds that he cannot afford some of the niceties his brother owns and doesn't think it is fair. Duke finds government officials who agree that Bubba is simply "luckier" and that Duke has a right to everything Bubba has. In order to provide for Duke though, the government will have to confiscate a large portion of Bubba's guitar business. Bubba doesn't care. He has "needs" that he wants met. That is, depending on government's ultimate role, fascism, statism, socialism, etc.

Now who is the GREEDY one - Bubba, who gained wealth through his hard work and ingenuity; or Duke, who wants to take that wealth at the end of a gun? Theft is theft whether it is a robber facing you down with a .45, or government taking your income via taxes. You can't have it both ways. It is impossible to fill a ditch while digging out the other end.

My fellow poster then made the fatal flaw of attributing character traits (either those he has or those he expects all others to have) on my fictional brothers in an attempt to refute my reasoned debate.

DB - Mattie, If the guitars are of high quality and the price is reasonable, then it might fly off the rack. If he builds a low quality guitar and sells it at a high price then that is greed. He did not care about selling a quality guitar, instead he was just interested in making money and just might lie about the quality of the guitar. He also might figure he can make a lot of money before the word gets out about the guitar. Most people do not know what they are buying and have to try and make a decision on what the salesmen is telling them. If the salesmen is on commission then you will more than likely be lied to.

Now that my fellow poster has rationalized his stance - using totally irrational logic - the posts degenerated into a debate on whether Les Paul's were still a quality guitar.

That is the issue with explaining economics to those who will not grasp the principles. Do we have any further obligation to educate them? Or do we just leave them to their own means, in an effort to "cull the herd" of the economically disabled?