tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post3175834355542178190..comments2024-02-29T03:34:23.190-05:00Comments on Who Were the Sea Peoples?: "The need for profit drives up costs"gcallahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-82124395220788412412016-09-13T12:21:46.301-04:002016-09-13T12:21:46.301-04:00Instead of ACA, they should have banned employers ...Instead of ACA, they should have banned employers from providing health insurance, phasing it out over a couple years. This would have created a real market, rather than a pool dominated by people who are sure losers from insurance companies' perspective. <br /><br />But that would have taken real political courage, and made the ultimate goal of single payer health care that much less likely. Gabe Ruthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06958214257606957422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-66191130847200061762016-09-06T18:34:22.701-04:002016-09-06T18:34:22.701-04:00"But there would be nothing illogical for a p..."But there would be nothing illogical for a proponent of state-produced t-shirts to claim that they could discover the same process improvements as the private sector and at at any point in time offer lower prices because of the absence of entrepreneurial profits."<br /><br />Hmmm... OK, but:<br /><br />1) Usually these people aren't actually talking about profits at all: they are talking about the returns to capital. And state enterprises have to account for that somehow if they are to do honest accounting.<br />2) And as you note, without the lure of profit, state enterprises usually don't innovate very much. So, in the real world, we get lower costs due to the search for profit, not higher costs.<br /><br />But I grant we can IMAGINE a State enterprise acting as you posit.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-70390025028215697172016-09-06T10:40:25.141-04:002016-09-06T10:40:25.141-04:00While I agree with everything else in the post I&#...While I agree with everything else in the post I'm not convinced it actually disproves "the need for profits [in the private sector] drives up costs." (if "costs" mean the cost to the end user).<br /><br />Take your definition "Profits are only earned out-of-equilibrium, by better adjusting the (non-equilibrium) employment of the factors of production to more closely reflect consumer preferences.". When entrepreneurs do this they typically will (for a while) be able to sell their product above the long term equilibrium price for it. In theory at least a non-profit organization might discover the same optimization but choose to set the price to not take advantage of the entrepreneurial profits available.<br /><br />Using you Example: You discover process Y and can produce cheaper t-shirts. Until others also adopt process Y you make entrepreneurial profit by selling t-shorts above their long run equilibrium price. A state funded t-shirt collective could discover the same process but immediately reflect the lower costs in the sale price.<br /><br />Of course its very likely that the possibility of entrepreneurial profit will drive process improvements and lead to long term reductions in costs. But there would be nothing illogical for a proponent of state-produced t-shirts to claim that they could discover the same process improvements as the private sector and at at any point in time offer lower prices because of the absence of entrepreneurial profits.robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04682517711551179057noreply@blogger.com