Quote: Make no mistake about it. Health care reform is coming. But what's the best way to fix our health care system, which is an inefficient, complicated mess of private actors, third-party payers, public subsidies, and innumerable state and federal regulations? Should we place our faith in the government or in the free market?
ObamaCare supporters argue that the answer lies in more government—more subsidies, more regulations, a law mandating individuals buy health-insurance coverage and, of course, more taxes to pay for it all.
The alternative is to base reforms on what works in the other five-sixths of the U.S. economy, where choice and competition increase quality and drive down prices over time.
Can a market-based health care system work? We can begin to answer this question by looking at Lasik, a medical procedure that's not covered by health insurance. And has gotten better—and cheaper—over time.
"How to Fix Health Care" proposes three simple reforms that will put us on a path to a health-care system that's better, more affordable, and more accessible. And get this—these market-based reforms can be implemented without creating new government programs or raising taxes.
Approximately 8.30 minutes. Produced by Paul Feine and Meredith Bragg. Hosted by Nick Gillespie
__________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 02 Dec 2009 20:04
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 193
Join Date: Nov 2009
Lasik is a really lousy example for healthcare.
It is at it's nature a cosmetic and elective procedure, so there is no reason to assume the market factors at play there would result in similar outcomes in the general healthcare market.
Health care collectives (either governmental or private) came into being because people could not afford costs associated with necessary health care, and this was when healthcare was cheap and relativly ineffective.
The real problem with U.S. healthcare is that, while nearly every other industrialized nation regulates their health care industry and negotiates prices as a very large customer, the U.S. leaves it to the market, which in addition to every other inefficiency puts the U.S. market as the funding engine for the majority of health care.
Drug companies and medical device manufacturers canalways negotiate a sweeter price to Canada knowing that the the U.S. will pick the bulk of their costs and provide the profit center as well.
Essentially, the U.S. subsidizes the world's healthcare, which is a terribly inefficient model for the U.S. (especially as we're likewise subsidizing the world's security of trade as well)and one wonders why we continue it, except that it works out to be very profitable for a very few with no real benefit to the majority, nor any health care consumer.
Posted: 02 Dec 2009 20:52
Registered User
Posts: 3771
Join Date: Aug 2007
I'm torn. I know that the 'free market' is a fantasy solution. I know we need cures above treatments, however if we regulate the profits here as everywhere else, we will possibly lose the new treatments as well, which may not cure the patient(while bleeding their life savings no doubt), but at least the patient has a shot at living long enough that their own body may cure whatever it is that ails it, which is not completely unheard of. For someone intent on living, getting actual extra time alive sounds like enough of a real benefit to me personally.
The only thing lacking from their list for me was a #4, Make it very very difficult for insurance companies to drop someone and they must pay healthcare providers promptly(clear up that muddled record and billing system maybe?). __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 02 Dec 2009 23:26
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 193
Join Date: Nov 2009
Here's the thing, you can have a free market solution, infact, all markets are free, even the ones you think are controlled.
Right now, in the controlled medical markets of europe what you have is a large negotiator who like Walmart (bastion of free trade that it is) gives take it or leave it prices that it wishes to pay. The tradesmen and suppliers than take or leave the offer and the negotiation moves on from there. Note the VA does a similar thing as does medicare, sometimes someone walks away from the table but only rarely.
The thing is, right now, with these take it or leave it offers, the drug company and medical device manufactures take into account of their negotiation how much the U.S. market will provide, so they give a lower deal to England, because they know they can make it back elsewhere. Similarly a company may give a sweet deal to Walmart, because they know they'll make it back at KMart, and they want the exposure that walmart provides.
Now, when the U.S. goes from being a retail market to a wholesale market, what the effect is, the price for other whole sale markets would go up, while the price for the U.S. whole sale market would drop significantly. This is because the U.S. is the biggest player, like walmart, and gets the best deal, which means the KMart that maybe pioneered this negotiation a while back winds up paying more.
This is why I support single payer, it's just economically more practical.
You don't have to worry about the Free Market. It's always there even if you don't belive in it.
Posted: 03 Dec 2009 02:18
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4132
Join Date: Jul 2007
Government involvement is just too messy. Who trusts the government to fix anything anyway? I'm with Mulder on the X-files. Trust no one especially the government. Look at all the trouble they go through to hide information from us like the existence of those little green men. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 03 Dec 2009 08:05
Registered User
Posts: 3771
Join Date: Aug 2007
All markets are free? When did this happen? More appropriately, maybe I should be asking what you mean by free there. 'Free market' is this catchall amorphous phrase now that people shape to mean a dozen different things to suit whatever financial or business argument they might be having. It's not even that I can outright refute what you're saying(which is pleasant and troublesome at the same time), but I would like to make sure we are speaking the same language.
@Tim
Quote: Government involvement is just too messy. Who trusts the government to fix anything anyway?
Why do you support their war efforts or call yourself a Republican then? __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 03 Dec 2009 17:17
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 193
Join Date: Nov 2009
To Tim; Trust no one, except major corporations who have our best interest at heart, got it.
I don't trust the government anymore than I trust anyone else, but I do recognize there are areas where the government is better suited to the job than the private sector. The Military for example is best served by professional soldiers with loyalty only to the state, rather than by soldiers of fortune.
The government isn't always the problem, sometimes it actually is the solution, especially in areas where the private sector has failed to provide an adequate system.
This is essentialy what happened with social welfare during the great depression. When the economy collapsed private agencys no longer received donations (because no one had money) and so the depression was made far worse because the normal agencies that provided care to the indigent (churchs and other charitable organizations) were going out of business too.
It's good to have a balance of priate and public, but it's important to note when one group or anothe is an utter failure.
As to all markets being free, what I mean by that is that the laws of the market don't change just because you are trying to manipulate it, (which is why most market manipulation fails) The real value of something will out in the end, even if it has to go through a black market or bubble collapse to get there.
In our private insurance market we are in a controlled market in that we are prevented from pooling our resources to be the biggest consumer. By keeping our health coverages broken up and scattered, the U.S. becomes the profit center for the medical industry, instead of being (as the largest consumer) the one getting the best deal.
There's no reason for Canada, with a 10th of the U.S. market for health care to get a better deal than the U.S. Prices in the U.S. shoudl theoretically be 10 times less then they are in Canada, but they aren't because we're subsidizing them through a market that prevents U.S. health consumer from pooling their purchase power.
Posted: 03 Dec 2009 17:49
Registered User
Posts: 3771
Join Date: Aug 2007
Matches, I'm not an economics major. I've only recently started studying the topic of money for myself a little over a year ago and had no idea what I was getting into when I started(money sounds so simple doesn't it?). If you would be so kind, please clarify what those laws of the market refer to and what market manipulations you are speaking of. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 03 Dec 2009 22:54
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4132
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: Why do you support their war efforts or call yourself a Republican then?
Our forefathers actually wanted the government to provide for the common defense. They never said anything about the common healthcare. And basically defense is the about the only thing the government can do decently. Any issues they might have in that department come from the crummy politicians that would be the ones running healthcare.
Quote: Trust no one, except major corporations who have our best interest at heart, got it.
So you want to ask the fox to fend off the coyote from the hen house? At least the major corporations can't put you in jail if you don't buy into their brand. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 04 Dec 2009 05:51
Registered User
Posts: 3771
Join Date: Aug 2007
I'm hard pressed to see how either the war in Iraq or Afghanistan has ever been for the purpose of common defense, but if you believe that's what they're there for, so be it. Could you explain how the war in Afghanistan and/or Iraq are for common defense?
On the second note, if all you are concerned about is common defense, why call yourself a Republican? I don't see the connection. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 04 Dec 2009 17:45
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 193
Join Date: Nov 2009
Actually Tim, the founders of the nation (Jefferson was prolific but as far as I know he is no relative of mine) set up many other federal services as well inclusive of the much maligned post office.
In fact our the founders set about to levying tarriffs and regulating interstate commerce almost immedeatly for the purpose of manipulating market forces to provide a more stable and functional society. Infact one of the main purposes of the constitution (along with common defense) is to establish liberty and prosperity. That direction to establish prosperity certainly justifies the actions taken by the federal government to provide those social services that ensure both liberty and prosperity.
As we saw during the Great Depression, without a social safteynet, a major economic collapse can utterly destroy your nation.
Posted: 04 Dec 2009 20:40
Registered User
Posts: 3771
Join Date: Aug 2007
Seems as though my earlier post might have gotten missed in the shuffle Matches. I am looking forward to your response.
Quote: If you would be so kind, please clarify what those laws of the market refer to and what market manipulations you are speaking of.
__________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 04 Dec 2009 21:35
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4132
Join Date: Jul 2007
Uncle Sam is not qualified to handle commerce. He makes things way to complicated. Keep things simple. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 07 Dec 2009 18:39
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 193
Join Date: Nov 2009
Hi Pak;
Didn't miss it, but I'm trying to formulate my response, I'll get something up here later this week.
Tim, Commerce works best when it has rules, those rules can only be set by the state. An economy without rules makes no differntiation between the charletan and the salesman. Since virtually all business transactions occur between inequal possessors of knowledge related to the transation a large entity must serve as arbitrator between them to ensure that the rules of the game are followed. You can argue for more or less rules, but without atleast a framework the process becomes untenable. Government isn't always the solution, but it isn't always the problem either, overly simplistic reasoning on this issue leads to one or the other extreme which ususally results in economic collapse.
Posted: 07 Dec 2009 19:00
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4132
Join Date: Jul 2007
What if the government had regulated Elvis. There would be no rock and roll. Think about that buddy. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 07 Dec 2009 19:13
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 193
Join Date: Nov 2009
If government had regulated Elvis. Perhaps Chuck Berry would have been the King.
Posted: 07 Dec 2009 19:19
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4132
Join Date: Jul 2007
I have only one Chuck Berry CD as compared to 15 Elvis cds. Thus I tell you my world would not have been the same. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 07 Dec 2009 19:42
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 193
Join Date: Nov 2009
It wouldn't be the same, but that's doesn't mean it wouldn't be better. I'm not saying it would be better, I always prefered Jerry Lee Lewis, over either of them.
The point is, government regulation isn't a boogey man, it isn't always evil, for example, I think we all prefer that toxic waste isn't dumped in our drinking water. Even though it would be so much more efficient for businesses to do so (and they did for much of the late 19th & early 20th century) we needed the state to say, Hey, don't do that, we're going to drink that water later.
Likewise, Just as we want the state to tell banks not to gamble with their depositor's money, and to hold sufficient reserves on account so that we don't have massive bank failures as we had at the start of the Great Depression.
Think about what our world would be without government interference in the processes of business. Check out the history of the early industrial revolution and you'll see it wasn't pretty.
Posted: 09 Dec 2009 19:41
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4132
Join Date: Jul 2007
I'm for clean water. Any law that protects people from being killed is good with me. Putting poison in the water is like murder.
Have to put the Monkees and the Beach Boys over Jerry Lee. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 09 Dec 2009 21:23
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 193
Join Date: Nov 2009
But Tim? Shouldn't the market decide how clean the water should be? I mean it's just a slippery slope, you let the government tell you your water needs to be clean the next thing you know they'll take away our guns. Why do you hate America so much?
The Monkees rock! But sadly the market was not as loving to them as they should have been.
Posted: 10 Dec 2009 00:18
Registered User
Posts: 3771
Join Date: Aug 2007
Hippies over a good ol' boy Tim? Really? __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 10 Dec 2009 16:56
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 193
Join Date: Nov 2009
By the way, Pak, about market forces.
In any situation, a vendor will determine based on market forces what price they will sell for.
Both the supply and the demand for the product are fixed, so that when any negotiation occurs, each vendor and consumer makes the determination of what the real value of the product is, and makes their decisions related to the sale accordingly.
In universal widget company pays $2 to produce a widget, they will be unlikely to sell their widget for $1.99, may want $4 a widget to cover other costs and profit margin beyond the base cost of production. Likewise, if the ministry of widgets of freedonia decides to fix the price of widgets at a price lower than the desired price of the vendor, the vendor will make their determination if the freedonian widget market is worth selling in. Likewise, the more freedonians desire widgets the less room the Ministry of Widgets has to negotiate down from the asking price of Universal Widget Company.
Even if Freedonia nationalizes widget production they are still bound by the same market forces of supply and demand, and will still have the same cost issues that Universal widgets had. No one, not even the state can opperate at a loss for long (note before we get into another discussion, loss is not the same as indebtedness, though they do become related as time goes one).
When a nation socializes an industry, they aren't controlling any of the base economic forces that dominate the industry. At best all they are doing is creating a more efficient market by gathering a larger group of consumers into a single buying pool, rather than having them negotiate individually for their products.
Let me know if that clears up what I meant by the statement that all markets are free, and if you disagree with my analysis feel free to let me know that too.
Posted: 10 Dec 2009 18:47
Registered User
Posts: 3771
Join Date: Aug 2007
I have no problem with your analysis whatsoever but I think you might not be taking into account what effects a debt-based economy have on supply and demand. My head is literally swimming right now with the complexity of the subject so forgive me if this doesn't convey as well as I'd like.
For one, part of those costs of making those widgets are the salaries and wages paid to the employees. This is even before the company can consider a profit of any sort. This spreads across the whole of the economy. The workers who make all these products cannot afford to buy them back themselves. The worker, barring loyalty to their company, is generally forced to choose cheaper items than the ones they would rather have. This is food to electronics to automobiles to homes. Demand gets skewed slightly here, which pushes supply in the opposite direction. All the higher end items have to either get shipped across the region or exported, which now pick up even more middleman costs(taxes even), or these too get discounted before long just to recoup costs if possible and recover if it goes too far. Companies that at one time flourished are left wondering what happened to their once great demand for their abundant supply they can't rid themselves of. The consumer picks up bargains where they can as unwitting scavengers. Supply and demand shifted because of the system, not the other way around. Look at the American farming industry for a great example. Farmers costs increase so they make less(and this is again due mainly to all the middlemen which become necessary for that farmer to survive) while our food prices increase and the food quality suffers greatly. Industrialization has skewed the supply and demand here as well- all thanks to a debt based system.
Consider now that a company that has shareholders has to do everything (legally) in their power to generate as much profit for those shareholders and this is after paying whatever costs are incurred along the way. The bigger and more powerful this company is, the greater the profits must be. It might win out in the end that market forces keep an even playing field, but I have sincere doubts here. I'm trying to imagine a company that won't resort to destroying an opponent that threatens their livlihood as opposed to just playing along nicely with them or going wherever the river happens to run them. They generally don't. These corporations do whatever it takes and have no shame in doing so-the model of meritocracy.
Keeping what you said in mind and my (admittedly awkward sounding) thoughts on the subject; when a nation socializes an industry I don't see the vendors as being left with a choice to not submit. If the company decides not to comply, they might as well go out of business. Government has a way of getting what it wants. The owner that doesn't want to comply will suffer for not complying, whether through honest methods or otherwise. A business can be hit in twelve different directions at once, especially by an entity with nearly unlimited resources that is used to getting what it wants, and most of us are painfully aware of this from the youngest ages. So we are left at this point with companies that comply with the government and their legislations and their limitations. When a government now fixes a price for a product, the strains I mentioned earlier are now worsened. The company has to make profits and it will be one of several factors that take the hit to do so. Either you cut costs by reducing quality, reducing middlemen, reducing staff, reducing their benefits and incentives down to reducing the remaining staff's salaries and wages. By extension, supply and demand get further skewed from distorting the product quality toward affecting the incomes(perhaps quality of life is usable here) of however many employees are left standing. A government wrangling it's way into an industry either ends with that company doing the best and having no competition, which is usually the case with any company that is useful in wartime endeavors, or becoming obliterated because of the involvement.
The company that is still alive and thriving because of government involvement still has to turn a profit. They now have the government with it's near unlimited resources a mere favor or handshake away. How hard is it to now affect the perceptions of supply and demand as a means of benefitting the company? If the media gets around to inflating the demand for something, doesn't real demand tend to follow? How about when that same item that became so necessary is now in 'limited quantities'? This is not actual supply and demand affecting anything, merely the appearances of each. In your example, the Ministry of Widgets just has to work a bit harder to protect their own interests by manipulating the perceptions of supply and demand.
The entire system is in debt, because that's the system we were given to work in, that's the system that creates money and that's the system that affords us living in the relatively decent quality most of us are used to- even a slum is better than a mud hut, for example. So we have the employee who has to pay their bills and their banks and other loaning institutions. We have the companies that employ those workers that not only have to pay them, but pay shareholders, submit to the government if they're actually fortunate enough to be given a shot and still feed themselves. We have a government beholden to a central banking system, while pretending to be for the people. Everything goes from the basest levels of raw materials and how they're extracted and refined and manufactured and sold to push everything from those basest levels straight through the funnel in the sky which is the vacuum hose held by these central banks. It is because of this system that I believe that supply and demand being some sort of authority in workings of business is really an illusion. They seem to me to be able to be manipulated, whether by conscious decisions made by governments or the media or ruthless business practices and as automatic effects of the debt based system itself. In my estimation, if supply and demand being a deciding factor is imaginary, then so is a free market.
It is a complex subject, and I probably messed up more than a few things, at least in the delivery. Feel free to be merciless so I might learn from it.
Quote: At best all they are doing is creating a more efficient market by gathering a larger group of consumers into a single buying pool,
Not if they're doing it against the will of the people or that industry. Then it becomes something less kind or harmless. Wouldn't you consider this action to be manipulating demand at the very least? For the government to actually socialize an industry, they're going to have to tax the people for it aren't they, like saying 'everyone's gotta have it' whether they want it or not? __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 11 Dec 2009 19:25
Registered User
Posts: 3771
Join Date: Aug 2007
I know that's a bit lengthy, but nobody has any sort of response to it at all? __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 12 Dec 2009 00:24
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4132
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: you let the government tell you your water needs to be clean the next thing you know they'll take away our guns.
Now buddy. It's like this. I drink the water. You drink the water. That's my water, and it's your water. It's something we can't allow some idiot to pollute. It's like a physical attack on us and our loved ones. We have to have water to live.
And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know putting poison in the water is bad for business. Even the government should be able to handle outlawing poison in the water.
Quote: Hippies over a good ol' boy Tim? Really?
Can't help it. Those guys have great music and I love their silly attitudes on life. Everybody should have that attitude toward life. Except for smoking dubies. Bad for your health. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 12 Dec 2009 13:27
Registered User
Posts: 3771
Join Date: Aug 2007
It was 'doobies' and that's not the proper terminology these days- at the very least go with the term 'blunts' so the youngsters understand. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 14 Dec 2009 16:58
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4132
Join Date: Jul 2007
So I'm failure at current or past drug terminologies. There are worse things to be ignorant about.
Dont' the kids these days smoke things that kills their brain in like 30 seconds vs 30 days anyway? __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 14 Dec 2009 20:10
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 193
Join Date: Nov 2009
Actually, as far as poisoning the water goes...what you have is competeing scientists declaring that x is a poison and x is not a poison. Corporations funding the studies that require them to do the least work.
If you convince enough people that poison is really koolaid, they have no trouble drinking it.
Take a look at recent numbers on global warming skepticism if you think folks are too bright to fall for this sort of stuff.
The point is, the state is going to have to make a rule, is going to have to say, "hey look, we looked at the science and this stuff is bad" and then we go from there. Whether it's arsinic, or co2, or good knows what they find next, the state is obligated to figure out through all the noise what is and is not bad and regulate it, even if a number of people oppose such legislation.
All environmental laws are an extention of this, as are most social wellfare laws.
We can all agree there has to be a limit, it's just a question of where we should draw that line.
I'm a big believer in the market, but there are times the market fails, and then the state has to step in. The Market fails on polution, the market fails on healthcare. The state is the big dog who keeps the other dogs in line, and yeah, the problem with haveing a big dog is sometimes it bites you. But that's what we have democracy for, to keep it in check, I just think you can't be so idealogical about dog care that you let the cats run wild in the streets.
Posted: 15 Dec 2009 16:19
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4132
Join Date: Jul 2007
You feed that dog too much and he gets too big and powerful, how are you going stop him? He's just going to look at you and bite your dang head off. I'm just saying. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 15 Dec 2009 23:47
Registered User
Posts: 3771
Join Date: Aug 2007
That was the point of limiting his growth in his adoption papers to begin with. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
I've only recently started studying the topic of money for myself a little over a year ago and had no idea what I was getting into when I started(money sounds so simple doesn't it?). If you would be so kind, please clarify what those laws of the market refer to and what market manipulations you are speaking of.
