[anilakar]

Whoosh. Luckily I have karma to burn.

If there is a real free market where consumers have a real choice, it can be argued that the system works, even if it's a race to the bottom. Even you indirectly admitted that most markets aren't free.

There are numerous cases where "socialism" (as laissez-faire Americans like to define it) achieves its goals better and cheaper, like healthcare and pretty much all natural monopolies such as infrastructure. Need any hard evidence with A/B tests? Look at the results of the privatization of European national railways.

[deburo]

It's not obvious to me how subsidized healthcare is both better and cheaper in all cases. It certainly makes it more accessible for everybody, but that also has many downsides here in Quebec, including a very long wait-list for many types of surgeries, long wait-time for urgent care, many doctors/hospital staff are overburdened, or so I hear through the news.

I've also been meaning to read more on how the pharmaceutic industry works in the states, if the high prices on drugs are fair or not. Because even though prices may be high, it doesn't necessarily follow that the companies setting those prices are gouging people/being greedy, as many people claim.

[vkhorikov]

>Look at the results of the privatization of European national railways.

I don't know enough about (Western) European railways but I have data about American and Russian railways. Russian railways are controlled by a single government entity and they are a corrupted disaster. Americans tried to nationalize their railways in 1800s and all it led to was higher costs and worse quality.

My observation is that everywhere where markets are let free people get better results. It's true that most markets aren't free but it's not because of the markets themselves but rather because of the government staying on the way.