Libertarian doctors start their own clinic, post all their prices online, and charge way, way, way less than everyone else
Can you imagine what would happen to the price of gasoline, if you couldn’t see the price until after you put it into your car? The price would skyrocket like crazy.
Same thing with groceries, clothing, and well, pretty much anything.
Right now, health care is the only industry where most customers don’t get to see the prices until after the service has already been provided. This is why prices are so absurdly high.
The health care clinic in this article and video is completely different. They list all of their prices online, so customers can see how much everything costs before they actually get the service. As a result, the prices charged by this clinic are way, way, way less than what everyone else charges.
This is a wonderful policy.
In my opinion, the government should require all health care providers to post all of their prices online.
Here’s an article and a video about this particular clinic:
Economically illiterate Philadelphia mayor Jim Kenney, who signed a soda tax, says it is “wrong” and “misleading” for businesses to pass the tax on to their customers
This idiot has just proven that he knows absolutely nothing about economics or how to run a business:
Retailers Blame Soda Tax; Mayor Kenney Responds With Harsh Words
January 10, 2017
Philadelphia shoppers have been finding steep surcharges on grocery bills since the sweetened beverage tax kicked in, but Mayor Jim Kenney describes some of it as “gouging” by retailers who want to make customers angry about the tax.
Signs went up in stores and on vending machines telling customers price hikes were part of the beverage tax, receipts were programmed to charge the tax as a separate line item, it was applied to items that weren’t taxed and retailers blamed the complex process of passing the tax along.
All of it, said Mayor Kenney, is “wrong” and “misleading.”
“This is what they do. They spent 10 1/2 Million dollars in an advertising campaign to beat the tax, they lost,” he said. “They spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and they lost. And they’ll continue to lose because their legal case is not sound and their public case is not sound.”
Kenney said he believes most customers understand the reason for the tax and he believes it doesn’t need to impact them as much as it has.
“They’re gouging their own customers.”
Among retailers, only Shop Rite has responded, saying they are passing the tax along because it greatly increases sweetened beverage prices and it wants customers to know.
“When government steps in arbitrarily with individual subsidies, favoring one business over others, it sets inconsistent, unfair, illogical precedent. Meanwhile, the invisible hand that best orchestrates a free people’s free enterprise system gets amputated. Then, special interests creep in and manipulate markets. Republicans oppose this, remember? Instead, we support competition on a level playing field, remember? Because we know special interest crony capitalism is one big fail. Politicians picking and choosing recipients of corporate welfare is railed against by fiscal conservatives, for it’s a hallmark of corruption.”
– Sarah Palin
A trophy hunter pays $350,000 to legally kill a specific male rhinoceros which is old and has stopped breeding, and which has been harassing the younger males and preventing them from breeding. The money is used to pay to care for the living rhinos. Under this kind of policy, one population of rhinos increased from 100 to 18,000.
I myself am a vegetarian, but I have to admit that the logic in this video is quite sound. This is a good lesson in economics and the benefits of property rights.
I do understand why some people might have emotional objections to this, but even they can’t argue against the real world results of this kind of policy.
If the opponents of trophy hunting wanted to bring an end to it, all they would have to do would be to outbid the trophy hunters. As of yet, I don’t see any examples of them having done so.
Well, well, well. Even though pretty much every economist agrees that the most effective and efficient way to reduce carbon emissions is by placing a tax on each ton of carbon emissions, most environmental groups are actually against such a proposal in Washington state because the revenue from the tax would be used to lower other taxes.
In other words, protecting the environment is not the primary goal of these environmentalists.
Instead, their primary goal is to make the government bigger.
And this proves it:
Most environmental groups oppose Washington state’s carbon tax initiative
August 19, 2016
Many environmental groups have come out against an initiative in Washington state that would impose the first carbon tax in the nation because it is revenue neutral.
Environmental activists in Washington State running a campaign called “Carbon Washington“ successfully obtained the required number of signatures to get ballot initiative 732 (I-732) on the November ballot.
I-732 would impose a carbon-dioxide tax of $25 per metric ton on fossil fuels consumed in Washington State. If the voters approve the initiative, Washington would become the first state in the nation to impose a tax on carbon-dioxide emissions from fossil fuels.
The initiative aims to be revenue neutral, reducing the state sales tax a full percentage point and providing up to $1,500 per year for 400,000 low-income working households. In addition, in a nod to the fact the carbon-dioxide tax will increase the cost of manufacturing in Washington State, relative to competing states, the initiative effectively eliminates the state’s Business and Occupation tax for manufacturers.
Most environmental groups—including the Sierra Club, the Washington Environmental Council, Climate Solutions, and the Alliance for Jobs and Clean Energy—say they oppose I-732. They say rather than using the revenues generated by the tax to fund programs they support, the referendum returns the money to taxpayers.
“Revenues from its carbon tax would not be invested in ramping up jobs in clean fuels infrastructure or energy efficiency,” says the Sierra Club on its website.
Fox News reports the Audubon Society is nearly alone among national and state environmental organizations in supporting the measure. Speaking with Fox News, Gail Gatton, executive director of Audubon Society-Washington State, said, “I think for us, I-732 isn’t about money. It really is about what are the market-based incentives that will drive people to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
Gatton also told Fox News, it’s the first time that she can remember in which the Audubon Society was at odds with the Sierra Club and other green groups in the state.
Battle Is for Revenue, Not Carbon Cuts
Some believe the rift exposes a secret about the environmental movement: Many regulations and green programs are about money, not protecting people or the environment.
“Are left-wing environmental activists more afraid of climate change or tax cuts?” said Todd Myers, environmental director at the Washington Policy Center. “Their opposition to this initiative makes it clear they fear tax cuts more.
“The same people who say ‘we can’t wait’ to fight climate change are willing to wait if the policy doesn’t increase taxes and expand government,” said Myers. “It is the type of hypocrisy we see again and again from the Seattle environmental community.
Robert Bradley Jr., CEO of the Institute for Energy Research, says the fact environmental groups are fighting the I-732 in Washington State shows they are against consumer choice.
“The anti-fossil-fuel Left is playing some strange new cards,” said Bradley. “Some now want nuclear no matter what the cost, and the latest is any carbon tax must add to existing taxes for new tax-and-spend programs.
“A clearer example of anti-consumerism could not be given,” Bradley said.
This video is called “Venezuela’s Chaos: Every day is like Insane Black Friday.”
To see how it got to be that way, see this post that I wrote last year: Venezuelan military tells supermarket customers not to take pictures of empty shelves
Attention CNN! It’s not McDonald’s fault that Safiyyah Cotton chose to have a baby out of wedlock. Plus, here’s a rare news article that actually mentions the concept of personal responsibility.
In this seven minute video, CNN talks about a single mother who is struggling to raise her child on the small salary that she earns at McDonald’s.
As is always the case with news articles from the mainstream media about struggling single mothers trying to raise their children, the article says absolutely nothing about the baby’s father.
The article doesn’t say that the father has a responsibility to provide for the baby that he chose to create.
The article doesn’t say that the mother has a responsibility to choose a responsible mate to make her baby with.
The article doesn’t say that if they got married, they would only have to pay rent for one apartment instead of two, and so things would be a lot easier.
The article doesn’t say anything about the mother ever having made any attempt to acquire better education and job skills as a way to get a bigger salary.
By comparison, this news article by Inside Edition fully understands the concept of personal responsibility. The article is called “Mom Cries On Dock As Cruise Ship Leaves With Her Kids Still On Board,” and includes the following brilliant quote, the kind of quote that is completely missing in the CNN article about the McDonald’s worker:
Travel expert Mark Murphy told IE: “It is the woman’s fault for not getting back on time. It is not the cruise ship’s fault. It is not the captain’s fault. It is not the cruise line’s fault. Everybody knows the posted time to get back and that ship is on a schedule, it is going to go.”
I absolutely love that quote. I praise Mr. Murphy for saying it. And I praise Inside Edition for including it in the article.
CNN, and all the other mainstream news organizations that write about struggling single mothers without ever mentioning the children’s fathers, should learn a lesson from Inside Edition about how to write a proper news story.
Obama just gave approval for Cleber LLC, an Alabama-based company that builds tractors, to open a factory in Cuba. This will be the first new U.S. factory to be built and operated in Cuba in over 50 years.
As a libertarian, I totally agree with Obama on this issue. Bringing global capitalism to Cuba is a wonderful idea.
The average Cuban citizen earns $20 per month.
Usually, when U.S. corporations open up factories in poor countries, in order to attract workers, they usually pay between two and five times what the average worker in that country makes. So if this trend is followed in Cuba, we can expect this factory to offer workers between $40 and $100 per month.
And then, if current trends continue, we can expect U.S. protesters on the radical left, who never complained about Cubans making $20 per month while employed by the Cuban government, to complain that the $40 to $100 per month the Cuban workers get paid by this U.S. corporation is “exploitative,” just as they always make that same complaint whenever U.S. factories in other poor countries pay their workers between two and fives times what the average worker in those countries makes.
My take on this? Unlike those leftist U.S. protesters, I actually trust Cuban citizens, and citizens in all other poor countries as well, to choose the job that they believe if best for them. I would never protest against someone switching to a new job that pays between two and five times as much as their old job.
Anyway, as someone who believes in free trade and global capitalism, I applaud Obama for letting a U.S. corporation open up a factory in Cuba.