Have you ever tried to discuss something intellectually related to economics with normal people?
I tried to discuss medicare and they get emotional and angry.
Reinhard: I tried to discuss medicare and they get emotional and angry.
Maybe you're going about it badly?
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
Seriously. I mean I have a class at college which is basically a neocon circle jerk. I hold my head palms back and have ended up that professor's favorite student. You just need to know when and what to say.
Just don't be an apologetic for statists, and stand by your beliefs.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
Depends on the person in my experience.
Some will shut you out right from the begining. Other will be much more open minded and might even beomce interested in your arguments. The vast majority will concede that you have a good point, but care very little about economics and not pursue those ideas any further.
Not surprised, Reinhard. If you want to change someone’s opinion, sometimes calmness and patience are necessary. You may be arguing with sheeple (do not call them that, it’ll make changing their views harder since they will dislike you more). They could say, “How could I afford medical care in my old age without Medicare?” You could say, “If you were not taxed for years to pay for current Medicare beneficiaries, your savings would help fund your healthcare in old age. If the government was not paying for so many people’s healthcare, making them less sensitive about price, competition would pressure prices downward."
Libertarian Vijay Boyapati described his experience with this: I wanted to have a small epidermoid cyst removed from my back. The first practice I visited was a dermatologist's office, which deals primarily with insured customers and can afford to charge exorbitant rates. I explained to the assistant on my first consulting visit that I didn't have health insurance — I choose not to — and asked how much the procedure would cost if I paid cash. She quoted me $700 for a riskless procedure that takes about 15 to 20 minutes to perform, and would not in this instance be performed by the dermatologist, but by the assistant herself. As I explained to the students in the public-health-policy class, the fact that there are very basic procedures that cost the equivalent of $2,100 an hour is a glaring sign that the market's normal price mechanism has been broken.
On the recommendation of a friend, I decided to visit another medical practice, Country Doctor, which deals mostly with lower-income patients who do not have health insurance. Because its customers pay out of pocket, Country Doctor has a much stronger incentive to charge prices that its customers are willing to pay up front. When I had the procedure to remove the cyst done at Country Doctor, it was performed by an actual doctor, and it cost less than $50.
The moral of the story is that price sensitivity is a crucial factor in driving prices down over time. Government policy has undermined price sensitivity, and this has been a very important cause in the rising costs of the American healthcare system.
“I mean I have a class at college which is basically a neocon circle jerk.”
Give this to them.
They seem to me to argue based on history and they think in events as opposed to theory and principle. That is, if I argue that saving increases income they would argue that income is increased by an increase in sales output; it seems that they believe that I'm making a claim about economic history and not a more general theoretical claim. Sort of like saying, There is an infinity of real numbers and they respond "I've never counted to infinity".
I think that a way to meet these people half-way is to just use "everything-being-equal" clauses.
Reinhard:Have you ever tried to discuss something intellectually related to economics with normal people? I tried to discuss medicare and they get emotional and angry.
I have. It is a waste of time. It is like trying to discuss algebra or chess openings with your dog.
“I have. It is a waste of time. It is like trying to discuss algebra or chess openings with your dog.”
If you believe this, then do you believe that the Ludwig von Mises Institute is wasting the money of its donors, since explaining economics to “normal people” “is a waste of time”? Unless everyone here started out as a libertarian, then someone changed their views.
Gero:If you believe this, then do you believe that the Ludwig von Mises Institute is wasting the money of its donors, since explaining economics to “normal people” “is a waste of time”?
Gero, you have been around here a long time, and I have never had a problem with your posts, but these days, I don't suffer fools gladly, so please re-read my post, and then ask yourself if your reductio isn't really a non sequitur.
I find the most success by leading them to the correct solution rather than telling them outright. Ask them a bunch of questions, starting with very very basic ones, that have obvious and indisputable answers. Use each of *their* answers to build up to the next question so you are making no assertions that they haven't already made themselves.
The trick with this strategy is starting *really* simple, which can be difficult at times. Sometimes something that you are I takes as "obvious" is not obvious to them and if you jump ahead you can ruin further discussion.
I agree with Micah: the best approach is to use Socratic questioning, analogy and reductio ad absurdum. Even with the last two, pose the scenario to them as a question: remember, the aim of your exercise is ultimately concerned with what they think. After this, a simple 'why?' or 'why not?' is often enough for people to realise - at least within their own minds - that they are on shaky ground.