They gloss over all the people with serious illnesses that will be dead since they couldn't afford medical care and/or insurance driving down costs to insurance companies.

". And probably raise them for everyone else to cover the fact that there will be a smaller pool without the mandate. "

If that were the case, Ogion, why have premiums risen since the instatement of Obamacare?

Premiums will go down. The government saves around $300 billion a year. 24 million lose coverage. Those are the facts. The ethics is what is up for debate, not that.

http://csdd.tufts.edu/news/complete_story/tufts_csdd_rd_cost_study_now_published

2.6 billion dollars to make a new drug.

this might be a good place to start, if we want to make healthcare cheaper.

purely socialist, or purely capitalist: that's a problem

And then there's the fact that more small businesses will hire once the mandate goes away too. Many have been toeing the line right under 50 employees so they could avoid it

"If that were the case, Ogion, why have premiums risen since the instatement of Obamacare?"

Well...
a) Premiums have been rising for a long time. The trend line for premium face prices appears fairly consistent over at least the last 20 years, although I've read studies arguing that ACA subsidies are keeping the face price artificially low.
b) Trump hasn't committed to removing any of the factors that would contribute to rising premiums under Obamacare as far as I know.
c) Trump *has* committed to remove the individual mandate (and replace it with a more awkward version of the same thing), which is likely to accelerate a death spiral rather than control it.

Premiums will not go down. There is zero evidence for that and the various analyses out there all show premiums increasing. In fact premiums were shooting through the roof before Obamacare, and that rate of increase dropped, especially when looking at the amounts paid rather than nominal rates that few if any actually pay.

Context is your friend.

And the effect on hiring is negligible at best. People hire when there are customers. But provide evidence rather than hand waving if you want us to consider that

I just heard it on Bloomberg radio today on the drive home. Looking at the breakdowns of the last two months' employment figures

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/13/politics/cbo-report-health-care/

"Premiums are expected to jump up to 20 percent in the individual market in 2018 and 2019, but after that, they would decrease. By 2026, average premiums would be roughly 10% lower than under the current system."

and that's from CNN!

Yes, James, that is an article about the study Ogion quoted.

I'm interested in that list of factors driving down costs:
"Starting in 2020, the increase in average premiums from repealing the individual mandate penalties would be more than offset by the combination of several factors that would decrease those premiums: grants to states from the Patient and State Stability Fund (which CBO and JCT expect to largely be used by states to limit the costs to insurers of enrollees with very high claims); the elimination of the requirement for insurers to offer plans covering certain percentages of the cost of covered benefits; and a younger mix of enrollees."

So:
1) The federal government spends $100bn in tax money to effectively subsidize premiums;
2) Insurers can cover less of the cost of claimed benefits;
3) Due to age rating, more young people would be okay with signing up and fewer old people could afford to.

Particular to (2), the CBO report notes:
"Because of plans’ lower average actuarial values, CBO and JCT expect that individuals’ cost-sharing payments, including deductibles, in the nongroup market would tend to be higher than those anticipated under current law. In addition, cost-sharing subsidies would be repealed in 2020, significantly increasing out-of-pocket costs for nongroup insurance for many lower-income enrollees. The higher costs would make the plans less attractive 15 than those available under current law to many potential enrollees, especially people who are eligible for the largest subsidies under current law."

So, when goldfinger0303 writes:
"The government saves around $300 billion a year. 24 million lose coverage. Those are the facts."

Some important facts are being left out.
1) The CBO estimate is $30bn/yr over the next 10 years, not $300bn/yr. Orders of magnitude are important.
2) Not only do lots of people lose coverage, but the coverage for those who *are* covered will be worse.
3) The people who *really* get hit are older people who won't be able to afford premiums under the new age rating policy.

Those seem like relevant factors for the ethical debate.

wait, why does coverage drop? if the older people are dropping out, then the healthier people should stay in. lower costs for insurance companies would mean they could provide more coverage if anything.

unless you mean aggregate coverage, since 24 million people lose coverage.

ohhh sorry, it's a forced coverage to drop, to lower prices even more. gotcha

James, I'm not sure what you propose to do about the cost of drug R&D or if anything in that article supports even passing judgement on that price tag. I think the main takeaway message is, damn, making new drugs is difficult...

@Yonni that was just a source on my price tag number, though the FDA requires TONS of costs on developing drugs, and their regulations can be very confusing as well.

the cost of developing new drugs is expanding rapidly, it's not just inflation pushing it up.

"They don't make money on the cure. They make money on the comeback!" - Chris Rock

Drug companies make plenty of money by:
1) keeping Americans paying forever.
2) making Americans pay more than people from other countries.
3) by extending patent protection by tweaking the patents (e.g. extended release)

So I'm not really worried about the cost to develop a new drug. FDA approval should remain as rigorous as ever. People can participate in drug trials if they are desperate enough, but they would be doing so knowing that there are serious risks -- risks that many people are willing to bear for the chance of relief.

James, why do you assume that if costs to medical insurance providers drops that axiomatically translates to lower costs to medical insurance consumers ? Might those medical insurance companies use their lower costs to increase profits ? After all, increasing profits is why they are in business, not some altruistic desire to deliver benefits to the community.

@MajorMitchell

in a monopoly, this would be true (and many laws stop entry into markets for insurance companies, such as state line laws). however, if there are two firms who are competing, to get more business they'll try to lower their prices and cut out the other one.

so... im glad to see you agree with the republican proposal to allow for more competition.

@Hauta

actually, only the big companies make anything anymore. smaller companies who have GREAT ideas for new drugs, still have to pay about 1.2 billion $ in out of pocket costs (See earlier survey)

demand for these drugs is characterized by "willing" and "able." if you make drugs a lot cheaper to produce, you have pharmaceutical companies in competition, prices will drop, the consumer will win.

we need competition in pharmaceutical industries, and massive regulations is not the way to do it.

furthermore, even in nationalized or socialized healthcare systems, the drug costs would still be high if we don't address this problem. this isn't just some ranting capitalist: this is an all-encompassing economic quandary.

if we keep costs extraordinarily high, then smaller businesses will just sell their ideas and patent rights off to bigger companies for relative to what they would make, minuscule profit, and the bigger companies can abuse the american consumer.

it's a reason why i don't trust Hillary: look at the campaign contributions to her from pharmaceutical companies compared to other candidates. even if you want a nationalized program, the costs will be massive

@MM,
The answer is very simple; it is a market. As long as the market is healthy enough for businesses to be able to undercut other businesses price level, then demand is elastic for each provider which means that they have to compete for customers.

@JamesYanik,
That is correct. The greater the burden on the supply side the more inelastic demand becomes because it becomes increasingly more difficult for smaller businesses to compete. Inelastic demand results in businesses raising prices. It is simple supply and demand.

James, I do NOT agree with this proposal from the Republicans, don't misrepresent me, it's a continual habit of yours, and bloody annoying.
I simply pointed out a flaw in your assumptions.
This "competition will always cause lowest price to consumers" theory is all very nice from your armchair on the sidelines, but in reality it's been debunked so many times.
Yes it does occur in limited ways, but there's inevitably a "claw back" of profit going on to counter balance the "discount"
Just watch the ways rival supermarket giants fight each other, they use "loss leaders" such as selling unrefrigerated soft drinks in large bottles at zero margin or slight loss, but price hike across other items.
So for example the medical insurers will have a "token discount" which will be given huge fanfare, but then the devil is in the fine print eg, higher co~payments from the claimant in other linked areas..eg they'll announce a discount on surgery, but quietly hike the fees for the anesthetist
Wake up & grow up James

@MajorMitchell

"James, I do NOT agree with this proposal from the Republicans, don't misrepresent me, it's a continual habit of yours, and bloody annoying."

actually i was mocking you, though can you give me another example in the past where I've misrepresented you? it should be easy to pick one out if it is a "continual" habit.

"This "competition will always cause lowest price to consumers" theory is all very nice from your armchair on the sidelines, but in reality it's been debunked so many times."

1. no it hasn't
2. at least provide a source to your unsubstantiated claims

"Yes it does occur in limited ways, but there's inevitably a "claw back" of profit going on to counter balance the "discount""

so... if i'm competition with someone else, and i raise my prices to get profit: will people purchase the higher priced product? or do you mean once a monopoly forms, because price loyalty goes to the smaller businesses trying to undercut the monopoly in that one too.

"Just watch the ways rival supermarket giants fight each other, they use "loss leaders" such as selling unrefrigerated soft drinks in large bottles at zero margin or slight loss, but price hike across other items."

it's interesting that you say that, because walmart consistently lowers all of its prices. you of course mean a market in monopolistic competition (pre-oligarchy) and the truth about that is, the save consumer can still find the marked up prices at lower costs.

FURTHERMORE, this situation is unique to grocery stores. most businesses don't run a multiple commodity trade, and those that do don't have products in as high a demand as food.

your example is anecdotal, and only focuses on one aspect of the situation

"So for example the medical insurers will have a "token discount" which will be given huge fanfare, but then the devil is in the fine print eg, higher co~payments from the claimant in other linked areas..eg they'll announce a discount on surgery, but quietly hike the fees for the anesthetist"

i love "the devil is in the fine print" because guess what: it's the CONSUMER'S responsibly to read the fine print.

we've become lazy consumers... who reads the "terms and conditions" anymore? but that's OUR fault: it's a consensual contract, that the consumer has signed.

"Wake up & grow up James"

yes... i see it now: socialism which has always failed in its implementation is the correct way to go HALLELUJAH

savvy consumer*

James, here is a real world example. Ironically the builder chap's name was Brad, so in a major city, with all the extra complications of gridlock, difficult access etc & a slight slump in demand at the time, so Brad the builder has heals of competitors, and he gets an invitation to quote on a job, major ( ha ha ) extensions to an existing house and the client wanted to pay in cash. So Brad goes and looks at the job and is preparing his quote and then casually mentioned the job to myself and another member of my family when we are playing golf. Wants our thoughts on how much discount he should give because the client is paying cash up front.
So "we" agree to look into this client chap, but already we are saying "Don't discount, add a premium instead" To cut to the chase. We confirm our suspicion that the client is a successful drug dealer & get back to Brad the builder & lay it out for him and argue for a 25% premium and not a discount.
The client is trying to do two things.. Wash his dirty cash & hide untaxed illegal income in improving the capital value of a legal asset...the house in a desirable location.
Secondly, the client wants Brad to do the job as Brad has done a few of these upmarket jobs on time and he does excellent quality work, this client reached out to Brad, so whilst Brad thinks there is possible competition from other builders, actually there isn't.
We have to put quite a bit of effort into convincing Brad the builder to charge a 25% premium, and end up almost giving up because he stubbornly resists. In the end he adds about 15%.
He comes back later and admits we were right and is kicking himself for not adding the 25%.. He went to see the client, nervously pitched his quote with the 15% premium, the guy didn't even quibble, accepted the price, wanted Brad to start ASAP, gave him a bag with $150 k in cash as a "starter payment" and then wanted to spend his energy and time discussing changes, please make the new brick garage bigger to accomodate extra Harley Davidsons as well as his cars, and can Brad upgrade the kitchen as well. That job was a real "learning experience" for Brad the builder.. The client wasn't doing the favour to Brad by paying up front in cash..Brad was doing the client the extra service by accepting the cash..dirty cash and making it clean, so charge extra for that. So on the surface it looks like a classic free market with lots of competitors who could do the job..but the reality was..Brad was always the favoured supplier, the client wanted Brad to-do the job, and a competitive price was not important, laundering the dirty cash without "blowback" was important and doing a top quality job was important.
Naivety with theoretical purity from the armchair on the sidelines blinkers the view, you young idealistic novice. As I said, wake up & grow up.

i gotta go, there is much skiing to do, but i'll check back here in a little bit. i want to see these proofs that show that more competition raises prices when i get back

Another real world example, Red Bull..that drink that gives you wings & I'll spell it out for you in a flow up post, and yes the majority of consumers are lazy Dill's and let emotions drive purchasing decisions and savvy businesses exploit that every day
Your theoretical free .market assumes clever consumers..well most are dumb as two thick planks

You want t proof that "competition raises prices"... Well there's another example of you misrepresenting me, so let's deal with that.
I am suggesting that it is not axiomatically true that businesses will always pass onto consumers the full benefits of reductions in their costs, or for that matter improved productivity benefits.
I am suggesting, repeat for your ideologically blinkered mind, SUGGESTING that businesses will try to keep as much as they can of savings in production etc as profit, and only pass on to consumers what they deem to be necessary to keep market share etc. Socialism doesn't really feature here, self interest does.

Now if I might get to Red Bull..the chap behind that is a business genius imho..perhaps selfish with a lack of concern about the environmental footprint of his automotive indulgences, but a genius imho.
Soft drinks and beverage is a cut throat business environment, the CokaCola V Pepsi wars are just an example.
So Mr Red Bull sets up with a clear plan, he is never going to compete on price ( or taste & I'll get to that as well ) in fact he's going to set a price on his product that is between three and four times the price of those soft drink competitors who do compete on price..that's 300% to 400% sweet James.
He's going to so cleverly use marketing, image and advertising that he must be, imho, regarded as a genius. Plus he relies on the gullibility of consumers.
He correctly picks the trend in the market towards "energy drinks" and, as I understand it, tries an ill tasting energy drink when in Asia competing in some athletics type event, and the inspiration comes to him...make his new energy drink deliberately "hard to swallow", so it's not a sweet, nice tasting drink...it's a form of "medicine" in the eyes of his consumers..gullible fools, it's like medicine... Medicine tastes bad but is good for the consumer. He leverages off a commonly believed "myth"
I won't go into the ins & outs of his brilliant marketing, image making, brand making and advertising ( such as his genius for using non traditional advertising mediums )
The end result is a company that in one of the most competitive markets, never competes on price, has amazing success and growth in market share, & is hugely profitable. Mr Red Bull is still laughing all the way to his banks, and casually blows your "businesses have to compete on price or fail" naive theories out of the water ..as i said, I think Mr Red Bull is a business genius.

Now just in case some persnickety pedantic blighter says, Hang on Red Bull have competed on price with a get six for the price of four offer of similar... RedBull have never seriously competed on price with the genuine low priced soft drink competitors in the larger soft drink market. Red Bull have used marketing tricks that are a very limited form of price based competition eg get 6 for the price of four..it's a brief form of price competition with "itself" or a specific rival in their "niche".. energy drinks, or it's a marketing tool in a specific geographical market.
But the generalisation, in my opinion is true, Red Bull do not compete on price, it's the central key to the company's wonderful profitability.. Red Bull competes brilliantly in marketing and advertising

So much of these "free market" theories, Friedman economic theory, etc assume as an example that consumers are rational, discerning creatures, well they are not. Go back to Adam Smith and his competing self interest stuff etc etc well the charming old Dear never had a clue about the power of advertising, the power of image over substance & the astounding gullibility of consumers. Barnum T Bailey was right on the mark with his comments about there being a fool born every minute.
So please don't label me a Marxist of a socialist.. I'm a capitalist with a social conscience if you must have a label.. I was thinking only today that I should have used "Toad of Toad Hall" as a player name here, denying the existence of any conscience to allow my pretence of insularity and recognising my natural arrogance. Lol

@MajorMitchell

"James, here is a real world example. Ironically the builder chap's name was Brad, so in a major city, with all the extra complications of gridlock, difficult access etc & a slight slump in demand at the time, so Brad the builder has heals of competitors, and he gets an invitation to quote on a job, major ( ha ha ) extensions to an existing house and the client wanted to pay in cash. So Brad goes and looks at the job and is preparing his quote and then casually mentioned the job to myself and another member of my family when we are playing golf. Wants our thoughts on how much discount he should give because the client is paying cash up front.
So "we" agree to look into this client chap, but already we are saying "Don't discount, add a premium instead" To cut to the chase. We confirm our suspicion that the client is a successful drug dealer & get back to Brad the builder & lay it out for him and argue for a 25% premium and not a discount."

then turn him over to the police

"The client is trying to do two things.. Wash his dirty cash & hide untaxed illegal income in improving the capital value of a legal asset...the house in a desirable location.
Secondly, the client wants Brad to do the job as Brad has done a few of these upmarket jobs on time and he does excellent quality work, this client reached out to Brad, so whilst Brad thinks there is possible competition from other builders, actually there isn't.
We have to put quite a bit of effort into convincing Brad the builder to charge a 25% premium, and end up almost giving up because he stubbornly resists. In the end he adds about 15%."

then i guess demand was higher than you thought. demand of a product is how much someone is willing and able to spend on a product.

clearly this man was willing to spend more, since you raised the price.

furthermore, what you are describing is a demand for a high-integrity clientele. the situation you find yourself in is a lack of supply.

"He comes back later and admits we were right and is kicking himself for not adding the 25%.. He went to see the client, nervously pitched his quote with the 15% premium, the guy didn't even quibble, accepted the price, wanted Brad to start ASAP, gave him a bag with $150 k in cash as a "starter payment" and then wanted to spend his energy and time discussing changes, please make the new brick garage bigger to accomodate extra Harley Davidsons as well as his cars, and can Brad upgrade the kitchen as well. That job was a real "learning experience" for Brad the builder.. The client wasn't doing the favour to Brad by paying up front in cash..Brad was doing the client the extra service by accepting the cash..dirty cash and making it clean, so charge extra for that. So on the surface it looks like a classic free market with lots of competitors who could do the job..but the reality was..Brad was always the favoured supplier, the client wanted Brad to-do the job, and a competitive price was not important, laundering the dirty cash without "blowback" was important and doing a top quality job was important."

once again, this is a terrible example. there was NO competition for the job, because the drug dealer guy was only ABLE to use someone discreet. if there were another worker who had the same reputation as Brad for being discreet and a decent builder, then he could try to step in and build the extensions himself.

but what? no other person was available? sounds like a MONOPSONY

not a monopoly: a monopsony is one seller one buyer. this generally acts like a monopoly, though supply and demand = quantity supplied and quantity demanded.

"Naivety with theoretical purity from the armchair on the sidelines blinkers the view, you young idealistic novice. As I said, wake up & grow up."

THAT WAS A TERRIBLE EXAMPLE.

as usual we see why anecdotes are entirely ineffective. he presents a specific situation where there is only one supplier demanded.

Brad has a MONOPOLY on all discreet building, and if he does not, then clearly the consumer (drug dealer) is not price shopping: his own fault.




"Another real world example, Red Bull..that drink that gives you wings & I'll spell it out for you in a flow up post, and yes the majority of consumers are lazy Dill's and let emotions drive purchasing decisions and savvy businesses exploit that every day
Your theoretical free .market assumes clever consumers..well most are dumb as two thick planks"

and this is the suppliers fault how? maybe we should teach our kids to act responsibly.




"You want t proof that "competition raises prices"... Well there's another example of you misrepresenting me, so let's deal with that.
I am suggesting that it is not axiomatically true that businesses will always pass onto consumers the full benefits of reductions in their costs, or for that matter improved productivity benefits.
I am suggesting, repeat for your ideologically blinkered mind, SUGGESTING that businesses will try to keep as much as they can of savings in production etc as profit, and only pass on to consumers what they deem to be necessary to keep market share etc. Socialism doesn't really feature here, self interest does."

ok

here is what you said

"This "competition will always cause lowest price to consumers" theory is all very nice from your armchair on the sidelines, but in reality it's been debunked so many times."

sorry if i misinterpreted what you said there...

in any case, YES BUSINESSES WILL TRY TO GET MAXIMUM PROFIT!!!

but: there are two factors in total revenue

quantity of a product sold
price level of a product sold

QD*P=TR

so if you are competing with someone else, and you try to get higher profits by raising prices, people will simply go to a competitor's firm and buy their product.

yes firms will keep their price level high, but if only business isn't making enough money, they'll be forced to try to undercut prices, and increase the quantity they sell to increase total revenue. other firms must react, or lose buyers.

you make it sound like all free markets will end up in a monopolistic state, but this is fairly misguided.


"Now if I might get to Red Bull..the chap behind that is a business genius imho..perhaps selfish with a lack of concern about the environmental footprint of his automotive indulgences, but a genius imho.
Soft drinks and beverage is a cut throat business environment, the CokaCola V Pepsi wars are just an example.
So Mr Red Bull sets up with a clear plan, he is never going to compete on price ( or taste & I'll get to that as well ) in fact he's going to set a price on his product that is between three and four times the price of those soft drink competitors who do compete on price..that's 300% to 400% sweet James."

why can you never make an argument without mocking me?

furthermore, there are 2 markets for red bull:

the casual consumer, and the devoted brandee

"He's going to so cleverly use marketing, image and advertising that he must be, imho, regarded as a genius. Plus he relies on the gullibility of consumers."

all health codes are printed on the back of the can. it's not the suppliers job to coddle the consumer.

"He correctly picks the trend in the market towards "energy drinks" and, as I understand it, tries an ill tasting energy drink when in Asia competing in some athletics type event, and the inspiration comes to him...make his new energy drink deliberately "hard to swallow", so it's not a sweet, nice tasting drink...it's a form of "medicine" in the eyes of his consumers..gullible fools, it's like medicine... Medicine tastes bad but is good for the consumer. He leverages off a commonly believed "myth" "

ok this is pure bullshit.

people like the taste of red bull. taste is subjective. furthermore, red bull was only ever advertised to be a good energizer.

never have they ever claimed to be outright healthy. this would be false advertising and they would get sued. your weird example here is not convincing me of anything.

"I won't go into the ins & outs of his brilliant marketing, image making, brand making and advertising ( such as his genius for using non traditional advertising mediums )
The end result is a company that in one of the most competitive markets, never competes on price, has amazing success and growth in market share, & is hugely profitable. Mr Red Bull is still laughing all the way to his banks, and casually blows your "businesses have to compete on price or fail" naive theories out of the water ..as i said, I think Mr Red Bull is a business genius."

and this is where you are wrong. does coke taste like red bull? does pepsi? does root beer?

you are saying that he is competing in the same market of these soft drink people: on a macro level, yes. but int arms of the quality of his individual product, there is a much higher demand, because the good is more well received by people.

furthermore, if the consumer didn't like the advertising, or didn't like the product: demand would lessen.

advertising, is considered a part of a product. the social status you perceive to gain, can be measured by marginal utility laws.

maybe if you had studied economics like i have, you wouldn't confuse your terms.

goods in high demand sell at higher prices. simple simple simple.

furthermore, do you remember when i said there were 2 markets for red bull?

there are people who are devotees to the brand, and there are people who see it as a substitutable good.

Red bull sets its prices according to the first demand curve, not the second. through great advertising, they build up the devotee base.

however for the other market, the market of people who see red bull as a substitutable good: Red Bull FAILS compared to Coke and Pepsi, why?

because of their relatively high prices.

ask any economist, building up a base of devotees, is to self-create a monopoly. that is one market.

addressing people who see these things as substitutable, you cannot create a monopoly purely through advertising.


THOSE are the "ins and outs" that you ignored.



"Now just in case some persnickety pedantic blighter says, Hang on Red Bull have competed on price with a get six for the price of four offer of similar... RedBull have never seriously competed on price with the genuine low priced soft drink competitors in the larger soft drink market."

of course not. because the market of people who are devotees to red bull affect the price more than the entirety of the soft drink market. once again, you're trying to equivocate the two. red bull has a large market of devotees, and a smaller market of people who look at these goods as substitutes: when compared to other companies.

"Red Bull have used marketing tricks that are a very limited form of price based competition eg get 6 for the price of four..it's a brief form of price competition with "itself" or a specific rival in their "niche".. energy drinks, or it's a marketing tool in a specific geographical market."

not sure geography always is a factor... maybe slightly but i get your overall point.

"But the generalisation, in my opinion is true, Red Bull do not compete on price, it's the central key to the company's wonderful profitability.. Red Bull competes brilliantly in marketing and advertising"

but marketing and advertising increase the marginal utility for the consumer.

all marketing and advertising do is make someone feel better about buying a product. it (in the eyes of a consumer) is a superior good.

so yes, they'll pay more for a superior good.

Advertising is legal: it's the consumer's job to be informed.


"So much of these "free market" theories, Friedman economic theory, etc assume as an example that consumers are rational, discerning creatures, well they are not."

doesn't sound like the suppliers' fault. sounds like bad parenting/culture.

"Go back to Adam Smith and his competing self interest stuff etc etc well the charming old Dear never had a clue about the power of advertising, the power of image over substance & the astounding gullibility of consumers."

you do realize, that advertising makes consumers feel a part of a social movement, or as if they have better social status? it's PART OF THE PRODUCT. why can't we sell things that make people feel better about themselves.

"Barnum T Bailey was right on the mark with his comments about there being a fool born every minute."

https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/traits/intelligence

about 50% of intelligence is genetic, 50% acquired. fools aren't born. they're raised.

"So please don't label me a Marxist of a socialist.. I'm a capitalist with a social conscience if you must have a label.. I was thinking only today that I should have used "Toad of Toad Hall" as a player name here, denying the existence of any conscience to allow my pretence of insularity and recognising my natural arrogance. Lol"

if you really have a conscious, maybe go do volunteer work at a local YMCA or something, teaching people about fiscal responsibility. raise kids with good values, and make sure they understand consequences of their decisions.

attacking suppliers for making people feel better though advertising... not sure what you achieve in the long run there.



so if your final point is that all people are not rational: I agree

we need cultural changes.