Messages

[yt]OsNXNk14w1w[/yt]

This whole video, but especially (at 4:10):

"Without government, there is no rule of law. This is a no-brainer. Anyone can thus do anything they like. They can steal off of you, kill you, and rape your family and no one short of a vigilante mob will be able to put a stop to it or retaliate for said actions, because in an anarchy there is no rule of law. Without government, who will build or maintain roads?..."

He proceeds to ridicule his sources, including the source from the Guardian newspaper, stating that it is an unreliable source as newspapers tend to "cherry pick data"

.

This is funny because FSA thinks that the NHS Constitution and Waiting Times guide which claims individuals in the UK have a "right" to something means that the individuals are actually getting it, which begs the question. If the UK government stated that everyone had a "right" to sports vehicles, would that mean that all individuals now have sports vehicles? That's absurd.

He says that Shane read vast sections of the article himself, calling this practice "lazy" and "pathetic".

..all the while FSA quotes his own sources verbatim.

FSA states that the 18 week limit is a maximum, not an average. He states that many hospitals have waiting lists that are much shorter than this, and cites this link (an excel sheet) on screen [2]. He states if the NHS cannot meet the deadline they can refer patients to private hospitals.

FSA doesn't even look at his own evidence. The number of patients within the 95th percentile of the 18 week deadline period is always somewhere between at minimum 15% up to 25-30%. Seeing as this is an entire country, this is a huge number of people we're talking about who wait 15 weeks plus for treatment. In total, 23.6% of people have to wait 15 plus weeks, and 9.2% wait over 18 weeks. That's large enough for concern.

He then quotes from the article, "Patients with urgent conditions such as cancer and heart disease, will be able to be seen and receive treatment more quickly. For example, you have the right to be seen by a specialist within a maximum of two weeks from GP referral for urgent referrals where cancer is suspected. [1]"

So they have a "right" to be seen by a specialist within two weeks. The question is, are they? FSA doesn't say.

He plays a clip of Shane stating that over 10% of NHS patients wait over 18 weeks for medical procedures, the highest it's been since 2008. FSA states that the figures he provided (see [2]) show that this is a lie, and that Shane took only a limited number hospitals that had only 90% of treatments within time and claimed it was across the board.

FSA didn't even see the Pulse article as it was unavailable via the podcast link. However, a google search yields it. From the article:
"The figures show that 10.4% of patients waited for more than 18 weeks from referral to treatment in March, up from 10.2% in February."
http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/newsarticle-content/-/article_display_list/12202663/waiting-times-on-the-rise

FSA's data accounts through May 2011, so it may have gone down since then. However, to claim that Shane was dishonest because there are two sets of data is ridiculous.

The figures he provided puts the total average at 9.2%, or close to 10%.

FSA states that Shane is a stooge who endorses "free for all health care" and who thinks there can be a well run health care system with no government intervention and that if there is any malpractice that this can be solved via lawsuits. FSA states that this is ridiculous and that lawsuits are costly.

Many people in the US agree that we need malpractice reform. The nature of lawsuits right now is hardly a good indicator of how they could operate with reforms.

FSA states this is BS because cancer treatments are not considered an elective, and cited the NHS Constitution, which states " You also have the right to be seen by a specialist within a maximum of two weeks from GP referral for urgent referrals where cancer is suspected. [3]" He states that this makes Shane dishonest.

His only evidence is the NHS Constitution? Pretty pathetic from someone who ridicules newspapers and Op-Eds as sources. His other data is unclear about cancer treatments and how they are handled. A Constitution does not dictate reality.

FSA puts on screen: "I'm no fan of the "Corporatist" system in the US right now, but the one key difference is that the profit-mongers who dole out Health Insurance policies to people are at least kept in check by the Government. This safety net is removed in the Free Market."

As Lord T Hawkeye stated, FSA has no clue what Corporatism is, and uses a pejorative to insult profit making. He now claims that it is a strawman to think he hates profit making, but this statement sure does imply it.

He plays a clip of Shane stating that before the 1960s health care was accessible and very cheap, that almost everyone is covered, and that charity hospitals were everywhere. Shane states that they were driven out of business by licensing laws, the HMO act, and health insurance corporatism.

As for this quote, it is true that not everyone was "covered" by insurance as we think of it today - instead, most people had sickness insurance to cover catastrophic illnesses only and they mainly covered lost wages, the major form of loss at the time. But everything else is right on.

FSA wants citations for these claims, and call this "anti government nonsense".

I've done quite of bit of research on the history of health care in the US, and I can assure FSA that this is not "anti government nonsense". He may wish it was as it conflicts with his ideology (which he denies he even has), but unfortunately the facts don't lie.

Check out this paper for a good overview of the history of US health care and the State intervention that followed (I authored it a few months ago):
http://slulibertarians.tumblr.com/post/8827997917/health-care-in-america-utilizing-history-to-rescue-the

He states the pre 1960s health care industry was in worse shape than it is today, and that health care was cheaper because medicine and health care was lower in technology and that treatment occurred in homes.

Well, it's true that health care before the 1960s was more primitive, as was everything. However, this isn't because it was freer than it was today. However, the massive rise in costs are less so due to technology and more so State intervention in the form of reducing supply of doctors, reducing the number of hospitals, employer-based health insurance, subsidies and tax breaks to insurance companies, and most importantly the continual decline of out of pocket expenses on the part of the consumer. The actual history is much more complicated than FSA will ever know.

He states that demand for technology is limited and that higher build quality eliminates falling technological prices.

He has no evidence for this other than stating it is "obvious". However, the current computing and IT industry continues to see falling prices and higher build quality at the same time. There is no "obvious" reason this is different in health care, and without evidence or elaboration this can be dismissed as economic ignorance. What matters are the incentives and economic signals put into place in a given industry - the difference between the IT industry and health care in terms of these is what makes the difference in cost.

And if medical care naturally increases in cost, why is it that cosmetic surgery and laser eye surgery have gotten cheaper in real terms over the past 25 years while all medical expenses have skyrocketed? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that these procedures are typically not covered by insurance and therefore the price mechanism can actually function? (See my paper for the citation).

He states that at the early part of the 20th century that there was very little insurance due to lack of demand and because they were unwilling to provide it. He states that Shane doesn't know medical history. The source for his claims is here [4].

Unfortunately it is FSA who knows nothing about medical history, especially that of the US. There was little insurance in the modern sense, but most people had sickness insurance in the late 19th century. Many claim that it is the introduction of modern insurance that lead to the problems we have today due to distorted price signals and incentives (how would one act if car insurance covered everything, including gas and oil changes?).

He plays the podcast which says that the problem was made by government meddling. FSA states that it was not government meddling, but non-profit organizations that were forced to turn a profit due to "corporate competition" that created these problems [4].

FSA ignores the section of his own source stating that higher costs occurred not only due to increasing technology but also due to reduced supply of doctors via the Flexnar Report and the subsequent monopolization by the AMA. The source also discusses special benefits Blue Cross and Blue Shield were given by the State which lead to the formation of modern insurance companies, which FSA fails to note. He also fails to mention that for profit hospitals were virtually wiped out by the mid 20th century. As for "corporate competition", FSA also fails to note that non profits had to use "community ratings" while for-profts were using "experience ratings" by government edict. This is what caused the for profits to boom, as his own source notes.

This is a clear example of FSA cherry picking his own source.

He states that patients are able to gain preventive medical care which is a lot less costly than trying to cure an illness due to poor lifestyle choices. "1 ounce of prevention is worth more than 1 pound of cure."

I read somewhere that preventive and curative medicine actually cost roughly the same. I'm not sure where I read it though...

He states that the US has conditional for profit insurance, but that the UK system entitles you to health care, and that there are no pre existing conditions unlike the US. He states that insurance companies can declare pre existing conditions to be uninsurable and that policies only cover certain types of treatments and many don't cover regular checkups. He states that a co-pay is not affordable to many people. He cites the 15 million who are not insured who are stuck in free clinics.

He also fails to notice that there is little to no competition among insurance companies in the US due to corporatist barriers to entry. As for insurance companies not covering every little thing, the nature of insurance is to cover catastrophic uncertain accidents or illnesses, not necessarily to cover routine and known medical expenses. It is only because of such high medical costs in the US that one has to buy insurance to cover even routine procedures.

He discusses the difference between the corporatist model and the "free-for-all" model. He says that the US right now has a private insurance model that is regulated by the government. He states that insurers and medical facilities are regulated to make sure they are qualified, and that in a free market this would be removed and therefore there would be "crooks like Shane" performing medical procedures incorrectly, endangering people's lives.

This whole section is ridiculous. FSA acts like people would just go to any person claiming to be a doctor without even checking credentials in a free market. Is it really so hard to think that people would have standards as to what doctor they will go to for procedures (an MD, a certificate from the AMA or equivalent organization, etc)? Also, if insurance is still in the picture they have an incentive to know that their clients are going to physicians that are qualified. I just point to Tom Woods' mockery - "without the almighty State we'd all die in some hut somewhere and work in a mine for $1 a day." All I can say is wow.

He states that even one malpractice that results in a health issue or death is one instance to many.

That's not thinking economically. Unfortunately, mistakes happen and uncertainty is always there when dealing with evasive medical procedures.

FSA claims that lawsuits wouldn't work as malpractice is a criminal offense, and therefore it would be very hard to prove malpractice because the burden of proof is on the prosecution. He states doctors would get off, and that lawyers are very costly and would be inaccessible to normal people versus corporations.

As Shane stated, Malpractice is a civil offense.

He says that "free for all" healthcare wouldn't eliminate corporate interests, and that anti-competition laws prevent monopolies. Without these, companies would swallow up smaller companies that would eventually would result in a conglomerate with no restrictions from become a monopoly and with no checks and balances. 

There is a wide body of Antitrust literature out there FSA needs to read. He's been reading way to many high school textbooks on this subject.

FSA claims this wouldn't be solved by a free for all system that is unmonitored and unregulated. He states that free marketeers have no evidence that we can trust companies to do the right thing. Instead, outside of nonprofits,  they are in it to make money, and he states that trusting your life in the hands of for profit businesses with no accountability to the government is "insanity".

Businesses do have accountability. Consumers dictate the structure of production via their consumption habits. Besides, FSA needs to read a little Public Choice economics and learn that his almighty State is not as benign as he think it is.

Overall, FSA has a lot of learning to do in terms of economics and public policy. His own sources disagree with his claims and his rhetoric is unoriginal, uninspiring, and is the epitome of what Statists everywhere have been screaming for years. In the words of FSA, you have to do better than that.

So here's a video dedicated to Shane's 5-30-11 Bogosity podcast on the British NHS system and free market health care.

[yt]IkK7mK0rAIQ[/yt]

Here's a summary:

FSA starts by stating that Shane claimed that the NHS was limited in its waiting times for medical procedures to 18 weeks. FSA states that he is being vague, and that some procedures are done much more quickly due to urgency and that it varies by region. He proceeds to ridicule his sources, including the source from the Guardian newspaper, stating that it is an unreliable source as newspapers tend to "cherry pick data". He says that Shane read vast sections of the article himself, calling this practice "lazy" and "pathetic". 

He plays a clip of Shane stating that the supporters of the NHS and universal healthcare take an unbelievable 18 week wait as a sign that the system is working. FSA states that this a "childish and pathetic insult" against those who do not want to take the "selfish and insane" route of unregulated health care. He cited the
NHS Guide to Waiting Times which states that "You have the right to start your consultant-led treatment within a maximum of 18 weeks from referral, unless you choose to wait longer, or it is clinically appropriate that you wait longer [1]." FSA states that before Shane assumes that individuals would wait longer if it is determined they are not in clinical need that this will be addressed shortly. He also states that the NHS has issues but that it is not the "medieval and barbaric system" Shane would have you to believe.

He continues with this quote from the same article: " This includes treatments where a consultant retains overall clinical responsibility for the service or team, or for your treatment. This means the consultant will not necessarily be present for each appointment, but will take overall responsibility for your care. The setting of your consultant-led treatment, for example whether hospital-based or in a community-based clinic, will not affect your right to treatment within 18 weeks. [1]" FSA states that the 18 week limit is a maximum, not an average. He states that many hospitals have waiting lists that are much shorter than this, and cites this link (an excel sheet) on screen [2]. He states if the NHS cannot meet the deadline they can refer patients to private hospitals.

He then quotes from the article, "Patients with urgent conditions such as cancer and heart disease, will be able to be seen and receive treatment more quickly. For example, you have the right to be seen by a specialist within a maximum of two weeks from GP referral for urgent referrals where cancer is suspected. [1]" FSA states that Shane neglected to tell his viewers this fact. He plays a clip of Shane stating that the statistics show the universal healthcare supporters wrong and that this came from the NHS itself. FSA states that Shane didn't provide the actual source for his statistics.

FSA cites a 5 part series by TheElmoIsEvil about the Canadian health care system. He plays a clip of Shane stating that over 10% of NHS patients wait over 18 weeks for medical procedures, the highest it's been since 2008. FSA states that the figures he provided (see [2]) show that this is a lie, and that Shane took only a limited number hospitals that had only 90% of treatments within time and claimed it was across the board. FSA claims this is a lie and that this isn't unexpected from a "free-for-all anarchist who thinks the government is responsible for racism".

He plays a clip of Shane saying that a stooge for the Department of Health said that waiting times fluctuate but that the waiting times remain broadly stable. FSA states that Shane is a stooge who endorses "free for all health care" and who thinks there can be a well run health care system with no government intervention and that if there is any malpractice that this can be solved via lawsuits. FSA states that this is ridiculous and that lawsuits are costly.

He plays a clip of Shane stating that an 18 week wait can be the difference between life and death, and that the supporters of universal health care would claim that only the people who have elective care wait and not the urgently needed care. Shane states that electives include hip replacements and cancer treatments, however. FSA puts on the screen a statement saying he acknowledges the problems with the NHS so the claim that supporters believe this is an "outright falsehood". FSA ridicules The Guardian source and says that the statistics and the NHS Constitution states that individuals have a right to be seen within 2 weeks of a referral to begin treatment. He states that Shane is dishonest.

He plays a clip of Shane quoting The Guardian paper stating that there is no evidence that the electives people wait for in the UK are of limited value, and that many types of urgent replacements are on the elective lists and that they are on the list due to cost cutting. FSA states that this is quote mining because it is out of context. He states that Shane has a poor standard of research and that just because he can easily defeat creationists doesn't make him smart and that this is an example of confirmation bias.

He continues with a clip of Shane quoting Peter Kay who stated that rationing is unfair as it leads patients to misery. FSA states that the article is biased and that the NHS is in need of improvement. He plays a clip of Shane stating that delays in cancer treatments mean the difference between treatable and untreatable. FSA states this is BS because cancer treatments are not considered an elective, and cited the NHS Constitution, which states " You also have the right to be seen by a specialist within a maximum of two weeks from GP referral for urgent referrals where cancer is suspected. [3]" He states that this makes Shane dishonest.

He plays a clip of Shane stating that everyone knows that the US health care system isn't perfect but that this doesn't prove that universal health care is the way to go, and that people need to learn the difference between free market healthcare and the corporatist system the US has today. FSA puts on screen: "I'm no fan of the "Corporatist" system in the US right now, but the one key difference is that the profit-mongers who dole out Health Insurance policies to people are at least kept in check by the Government. This safety net is removed in the Free Market."

He plays a clip of Shane stating that before the 1960s health care was accessible and very cheap, that almost everyone is covered, and that charity hospitals were everywhere. Shane states that they were driven out of business by licensing laws, the HMO act, and health insurance corporatism. FSA wants citations for these claims, and call this "anti government nonsense". He states the pre 1960s health care industry was in worse shape than it is today, and that health care was cheaper because medicine and health care was lower in technology and that treatment occurred in homes. He states that demand for technology is limited and that higher build quality eliminates falling technological prices. He states that at the early part of the 20th century that there was very little insurance due to lack of demand and because they were unwilling to provide it. He states that Shane doesn't know medical history. The source for his claims is here [4].

He plays the podcast which says that the problem was made by government meddling. FSA states that it was not government meddling, but non-profit organizations that were forced to turn a profit due to "corporate competition" that created these problems [4]. He states the NHS has it's problems, but that in the UK and in Canada the emphasis by patients is to complain when they do not get their treatment properly, but not when they go well. He states that people who want private health care pretend it is much better than it actually is. He references Shona Holmes, who claimed that her medical condition was life threatening brain cancer that the Canadian system would not treat her. She proceeded to be critical of the Canadian system and warn Americans of its dangers. Critics pointed out that her condition was a cyst that was not cancer nor life threatening [5]. He conflated this with supporters of free market health care, saying that they are this dishonest.

FSA states that there is an issue of in-patient and out-patient care. He states that the average wait time for a family physician in California is 59 days, and that in Boston it is 63 days, while the US average is 20 days [6]. He states that people on Medicare and Medicaid have to wait for months because physicians don't want patients on those insurance providers [6]. He states that the NHS is different, and that you are seen within two working days (this is cited somewhere on the NHS site). FSA claims he never waits longer than a week for an appointment. He states that patients are able to gain preventive medical care which is a lot less costly than trying to cure an illness due to poor lifestyle choices. "1 ounce of prevention is worth more than 1 pound of cure."

He states that the US has conditional for profit insurance, but that the UK system entitles you to health care, and that there are no pre existing conditions unlike the US. He states that insurance companies can declare pre existing conditions to be uninsurable and that policies only cover certain types of treatments and many don't cover regular checkups. He states that a co-pay is not affordable to many people. He cites the 15 million who are not insured who are stuck in free clinics.

He discusses the difference between the corporatist model and the "free-for-all" model. He says that the US right now has a private insurance model that is regulated by the government. He states that insurers and medical facilities are regulated to make sure they are qualified, and that in a free market this would be removed and therefore there would be "crooks like Shane" performing medical procedures incorrectly, endangering people's lives. FSA states that this solution wouldn't stop "incompetent bafoons like Mr. Killian" from pretending to be doctors and harming people. He states that Shane proposes to take out everything that stops fraudsters from making money from people who have "no one to speak for them". He says that if Shane was a believer in the Constitution he would understand that the government is there to serve the people and that these regulations protect people's lives.

FSA states that Shane's response would be  "we can trust the Free Market to keep everyone in line so you can just go elsewhere if they don't perform up to scratch...Oh..and You're a Liar! So There!" (He claims this is paraphrased from Shane's comments). He states that even one malpractice that results in a health issue or death is one instance to many. FSA claims that lawsuits wouldn't work as malpractice is a criminal offense, and therefore it would be very hard to prove malpractice because the burden of proof is on the prosecution. He states doctors would get off, and that lawyers are very costly and would be inaccessible to normal people versus corporations.

He says that "free for all" healthcare wouldn't eliminate corporate interests, and that anti-competition laws prevent monopolies. Without these, companies would swallow up smaller companies that would eventually would result in a conglomerate with no restrictions from become a monopoly and with no checks and balances.  He cites a YouTube user who doesn't have health insurance and that he is suffering from a terrible health condition due to the US health care system, and that this happens everywhere in the US. FSA claims this wouldn't be solved by a free for all system that is unmonitored and unregulated. He states that free marketeers have no evidence that we can trust companies to do the right thing. Instead, outside of nonprofits,  they are in it to make money, and he states that trusting your life in the hands of for profit businesses with no accountability to the government is "insanity". He states that something needs to be done to the NHS and the US system but that the last thing to be done is to remove regulation and allow anyone to play doctor. He states that Shane will just massage statistics and manipulate evidence, and that he is a "literalist to the point of absurdity". He ends by saying Shane is a "horrible little character, who is irrational, egoistical, dogmatic, evangelistic, and is hypocritical at every turn."

Long summary, but I hope it helps anyone who doesn't want  to listen to such a long video. Here are his sources:

[1] NHS Guide to Waiting Times
http://www.nhs.uk/choiceintheNHS/Rightsandpledges/Waitingtimes/Pages/Guide%20to%20waiting%20times.aspx

[2] Excel Spreadsheet comparing RT waiting times in various departments and hospitals in the UK
http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/@ps/@sta/@perf/documents/digitalasset/dh_128285.xls

[3] NHS Constitution
http://www.nhs.uk/choiceintheNHS/Rightsandpledges/NHSConstitution/Pages/Overview.aspx

[4] Health Insurance History of the US
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/thomasson.insurance.health.us

[5] Health Care in Canada - Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada

[6] Comparison of US and Canadian Health Care - Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States

Here's my analysis of it:

He attacks an article by the Mises Institute titled "100 Years of Myths about Standard Oil"
http://mises.org/daily/5274/100-Years-of-Myths-about-Standard-Oil

He states that it is biased in favor of "anti government fear mongering". He states that people who subscribe to "Mises economics" have a foundational bias.

First off he incorrectly claims that the article is "fear mongering", which it is doing no such thing. There is a difference between pointing out the negative (unintended) consequences of a given policy and "fear mongering".  He claim that the article is "biased" is weak considering almost any article or Op-Ed is likely to take a certain position and therefore be "biased" according to him.

It's funny as he uses State statistics in other videos as if they cannot be biased or manipulated to serve the ends of the State (not claiming they are, but that is definitely within the realm of possibility).

One can also claim that Statists have a "foundational bias" toward using the State (and therefore violence) to solve complex social problems, so this whole section is a wash at best.

He summarizes the article and states that "the author couldn't imagine how an offer willingly accepted by consumers  could be unfair to them absent force or fraud". He references John McGee's peer reviewed articles, calling the claim that he studied the historical facts in depth as an "argument from authority".

The McGee comment is hilarious. I was the one who actually sent him a citation of the peer reviewed article. It  can be found here if anyone is interested:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~twod/oil-ns/articles/research-oil/research-oil/john_mcgee_predatory_pricing_standard_oil1958.pdf

Another good article that has many footnotes and citations (while not peer reviewed in and of itself) is here:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-169.html

FSA does not state how an offer is "unfair" if it accepted by consumers absent force or fraud other than ridiculing the idea, so it can be dismissed. On the contrary, Standard Oil's practices benefited the consumer via lower prices and higher output (the opposite one would observe in a monopoly).

He states that the article states that utilizing predatory pricing would harm a company more than consumers, but FSAthe1st claims that a firm could simply lower prices to eliminate all of the competition, and then jack up the price again when there is no more competition.

As stated by others, this completely ignores the various problems with the predatory pricing scheme. FSA conveniently overlooks the fact that a company must suffer large losses in order to sustain lower prices needed to eliminate competition, with no guarantee that they will make up these losses in the future. There is no evidence Standard Oil did this; on the contrary, Standard Oil only lowered prices by lowering their cost of production. In the comments section of another video FSA admitted that there was no evidence that Standard Oil ever practiced predatory pricing, but that it "could happen". Unfortunately, empirical evidence disagrees with him and the theoretical case is dubious at best.

He states that the article claims that predatory pricing is using "substantial monopoly power that is used to increase prices, thereby reducing the outputs sold.", and he states that this definition is wrong.

This is a quote mine, ironically. The article's full sentence is:
"The mechanism of predatory exploitation of consumers requires substantial monopoly power that is used to increase prices, thereby reducing the outputs sold."

This wasn't supposed to be a definition of predatory pricing, but an explanation of how a firm would regain their losses after eliminating competition (the 2nd part of the predatory pricing).

He states that the article is biased once again, and that it poisoned the well by stating that Ida Tarbell's book History of the Standard Oil Company was written because her father was driven out of business by Standard Oil.

Merely pointing out that Ida Tarbell had a motive to speak out against the company is not a logical fallacy.

He states that predatory pricing means that there are price cuts that destroy the competition and "prices them out of the market", which Standard Oil was more than capable of doing. He states that Standard Oil bought tons of stock and had such a large stock of oil that they started to export to China.

FSA ignores the section of the article that debunked the idea that predatory pricing is an effective way of gaining a monopoly or monopoly profits, and the fact that Standard starting losing market share before the legislation was enacted actually refuted his idea that Standard Oil was on the verge of being a monopoly.

He says that anyone who claims that monopolies cannot exist in a free market or that they are due to antitrust legislation is to take note that Standard Oil was huge before legislation was passed.

Market share started to dip before the legislation and following Antitrust suit was passed, so this is patently false. Standard Oil was huge, but not a monopoly. The other issue is the subjectivity of the term "monopoly". If one zooms in close enough, almost anything is a monopoly. Does McDonalds have a monopoy in Big Macs, or does Coke have a monopoly in Coca-Cola?

Better still, it did not act like a monopoly . Instead it consistently lowered prices and increased output, a fact even FSA admits.

He claims that Standard Oil used unfair competition practices that included "competition absorption and elimination" and the formation of a trust.

As long as he did not eliminate competition via force or fraud, it benefited the consumer to do so. The competition was simply not as efficient as Standard Oil was. And yet this is supposed to be a bad thing?

By 1906, Standard Oil had a huge market share before the antitrust lawsuit. He states that Wikipedia is a good source for all this. He states that Standard Oil would've been a monopoly without legislation, and this defeats the myth that monopolies can't happen on a free market, and that one shouldn't use libertarian "evangelism".  He states that the article uses fear mongering, poisons the well, and is hypocritical.

He has no clue whether or not Standard Oil would've been a monopoly, and the evidence says that it was improbable as Standard was losing market share before the Antitrust legislation even began. The article uses no fear mongering, and he does not elaborate on how it is "hypocritical" (he probably just wanted to add another insult for good measure).

Another great article if anyone is interested in this topic in further detail is here:
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/john-d-rockefeller-and-the-oil-industry/

I can do another play-by-play of his other videos (the one on the NHS, etc) if you like. Should I make another thread or just do it here?

I was discussing the topic of Standard Oil with someone and the fact that it did not engage in monopolistic practices in the comments of a YouTube video, and soon after he put up this gem:

[yt]lAs00RhDzQ0
[/yt]

In case you don't want to watch it, here's a summary:

He attacks an article by the Mises Institute titled "100 Years of Myths about Standard Oil"
http://mises.org/daily/5274/100-Years-of-Myths-about-Standard-Oil

He states that it is biased in favor of "anti government fear mongering". He states that people who subscribe to "Mises economics" have a foundational bias. He summarizes the article and states that "the author couldn't imagine how an offer willingly accepted by consumers  could be unfair to them absent force or fraud". He references John McGee's peer reviewed articles, calling the claim that he studied the historical facts in depth as an "argument from authority".

He states that the article states that utilizing predatory pricing would harm a company more than consumers, but FSAthe1st claims that a firm could simply lower prices to eliminate all of the competition, and then jack up the price again when there is no more competition. He states that the article claims that predatory pricing is using "substantial monopoly power that is used to increase prices, thereby reducing the outputs sold.", and he states that this definition is wrong.

He states that the article is biased once again, and that it poisoned the well by stating that Ida Tarbell's book History of the Standard Oil Company was written because her father was driven out of business by Standard Oil. He states that predatory pricing means that there are price cuts that destroy the competition and "prices them out of the market", which Standard Oil was more than capable of doing. He states that Standard Oil bought tons of stock and had such a large stock of oil that they started to export to China. He says that anyone who claims that monopolies cannot exist in a free market or that they are due to antitrust legislation is to take note that Standard Oil was huge before legislation was passed.

He claims that Standard Oil used unfair competition practices that included "competition absorption and elimination" and the formation of a trust. By 1906, Standard Oil had a huge market share before the antitrust lawsuit. He states that Wikipedia is a good source for all this. He states that Standard Oil would've been a monopoly without legislation, and this defeats the myth that monopolies can't happen on a free market, and that one shouldn't use libertarian "evangelism".  He states that the article uses fear mongering, poisons the well, and is hypocritical.


Thoughts?