On Counterproductivity

Let's see if Megan can be a condescending moron:

Let me see if I can make this even simpler:

She shoots! She scores! Condescension in the bag!

1. There is more than one meaning of the word rationing. Economics is a young discipline, and hasn't had the opportunity to nail all its terms down as perfectly as philosophy has. There is a fairly rare technical usage, which refers to any allocation of a scarce good: i.e. "price rationing versus fiat rationing". Then there is the common usage of the term, which refers to a fiat system in which the government uses fiat in order to abrogate the price system and impose a different distribution of the aforementioned scarce goods.

Oh, and she nails the moronity on her second attempt! Look at her conflating "meaning of a word" with "what she was actually arguing." Because, when she said the government rations and private insurance doesn't, she meant technically and wasn't arguing the pros and cons of public/private insurance!

But what's this, Megan has the ball again:

2. The former is a fact. The latter is a mistake.

3. It is no more technically incorrect to use both the common usage and the technical usage in discussing an issue than it would be to use "cost" in both the economist's sense--as any price, non-monetary or monetary, attached to an action--and in the common usage, as "price".

Oh she scores again! Notice how she creates two additional bullets which are clearly part of the first one! An amzing display of trying to make herself look smart and coming off retarded! The whole "making lists is a pretentious dodge to create the illusion of having "points"" bit really makes that tally standout in the annals of being a fucking douche bag!

4. My problem with the latter is that abrogating the price system generally results in a distribution and supply of goods that does not enhance the general welfare, or even, in the long run, the welfare of the people it is supposed to be helping. (See, United Soviet Socialist Republics, economic history of). There is substantial reason to believe that rationing in World War II led to sub-optimal material outcomes, whatever its moral or spiritual benefits.

Oh, and she's on another fast break! She uses the word abrogate and... YES! SHE FAILS TO USE IT CORRECTLY! BEAUTIFUL 3-POINT PLAY. THE CROWD IS GOING FUCKING WILD! Wait, the refs are reviewing the play and... THEY HAVE DECIDED TO AWARD MCARDLE QUINTUPLE POINTS FOR A SENSELESS REFERENCE TO THE USSR AS WELL AS THE SLIPPERY SLOPE FALLACY! WHAT A DAY FOR TEAM GLIBERTARIAN!

5. That said, Mr. Holbo is mistaken about the common usage. Rationing does not have to control 100% of a relevant good in order to constitute rationing, and indeed, no government ever succeeded in doing so (or for that matter, tried particularly hard). For example, during World War II, people who ate in restaurants could get around some rationing requirements in the US, and I believe also in Britain. Taxicabs got preferred access to gasoline. Both allowed the wealthy to "opt out" of the system. Yet I hope we can both agree that rationing during World War II was in the common sense, rationing.

Now here's an interesting gambit. McArdle seems to be making an actual argument based on actual facts. Let's see what the refs think of her examples and the call is..... IT'S GOOD! Yes, the refs seem to agree that since eating out and taking a taxi are luxuries that don't constitute the majority of consumption and easily COULD HAVE been rationed at the time if the government felt it necessary, they are stupid examples! The refs all agree that, while a 100% may not be the needed level for true rationing to occur, it is certainly less than the 10% or fewer of people who will be covered under any "public option" that will most likely not be passed due to opposition from right-leaning democrats! Furthermore, the refs are awarding her another bonus for continuing to fail to grasp that providing insurance isn't rationing because it is removed from the actual providers of service!

DO YOU BELIEVE IN MIRACLES? YES!