> Capitalism is amazing except for where market failures occur, which is many cases. The industries that suck the most also have the most market failures: healthcare, housing, and education
Those sectors you listed are actually among the least-capitalist and least-free-market in many locations.
They typically involve widespread and extremely invasive government interference that leads to significant inefficiency, service quality problems, and pricing distortions.
The healthcare industry, for example, is highly regulated in most jurisdictions. This eliminates most (or potentially even all, in particularly socialist systems) competition, which in turn eliminates consumer choice and also eliminates the incentives needed to ensure everybody involved behaves efficiently.
The housing industry is also highly regulated in most jurisdictions, and especially in urban areas where demand for housing can be highest. Restrictive zoning regulations, overzealous development review processes, unrealistic building codes, and financial system regulation result in a variety of market distortions that in turn can negatively affect the supply of available housing, the type and quality of housing that is built, rental rates, and purchase prices.
The education sector has perhaps the most government involvement of the examples you gave. In many places, it's provided directly by the government itself. Even if private options do happen to exist, they're often subjected to government-imposed accreditation and curriculum restrictions that neuter their independence. The situation can get particularly bad once government funding gets involved, especially in higher education, which can introduce severe tuition pricing distortions, inefficient use of resources, and so forth.
When a so-called "market failure" occurs, it's usually because there isn't actually a free market involved at all, but rather significant government interference and other socialist policies.
Government-imposed regulations are primarily put in place to artificially grant government actors influence and control (mainly the ability to forcefully extract and misappropriate real wealth created by the private sector) that they wouldn't naturally have in markets that are otherwise functioning perfectly fine without this interference.
Markets like healthcare, housing, education, and transportation tend to be early targets because they're large and widespread markets that are fundamental to everyday life, and thus prove to be very lucrative targets for government actors to exploit.
Sometimes, this government-imposed regulation is then co-opted by non-government actors who manage to further abuse it to their advantage, making the situation even worse.
"Market failure", "protecting the consumer", and similar phrases are simply the fake justifications used to try to make this unwanted and unjustifiable government interference more palatable to the public at large.
Government actors are inherently parasitic; they don't create real wealth, and are only able to siphon real wealth away from those who do have the ability to create it and then use it most efficiently. Thus, government interference inherently results in otherwise-fine markets becoming less-efficient and worse off, leading to what is then wrongly misinterpreted as "market failure".
Just to clarify, do you not believe in the concept of market failure? Or do you believe that market failure exists, and the government uses it as a scapegoat for intervention?
Please explain like I'm 5 how the US private healthcare insurance system is a socialist policy. Also with comparison with actual democratic socialist countries which somehow manage to provide healthcare without those major hiccups as seen in the land of the free (screech)
Those sectors you listed are actually among the least-capitalist and least-free-market in many locations.
They typically involve widespread and extremely invasive government interference that leads to significant inefficiency, service quality problems, and pricing distortions.
The healthcare industry, for example, is highly regulated in most jurisdictions. This eliminates most (or potentially even all, in particularly socialist systems) competition, which in turn eliminates consumer choice and also eliminates the incentives needed to ensure everybody involved behaves efficiently.
The housing industry is also highly regulated in most jurisdictions, and especially in urban areas where demand for housing can be highest. Restrictive zoning regulations, overzealous development review processes, unrealistic building codes, and financial system regulation result in a variety of market distortions that in turn can negatively affect the supply of available housing, the type and quality of housing that is built, rental rates, and purchase prices.
The education sector has perhaps the most government involvement of the examples you gave. In many places, it's provided directly by the government itself. Even if private options do happen to exist, they're often subjected to government-imposed accreditation and curriculum restrictions that neuter their independence. The situation can get particularly bad once government funding gets involved, especially in higher education, which can introduce severe tuition pricing distortions, inefficient use of resources, and so forth.
When a so-called "market failure" occurs, it's usually because there isn't actually a free market involved at all, but rather significant government interference and other socialist policies.