consumer behavior tends to be irrational

On a small scale looking at any given individual, sure. I make irrational decisions all the time. But on net, groups tend to act more rationally.

Look at politics, 68% of Americans support marijuana legalization and >60% disagree with Roe v Wade being overturned, yet both are hotly debated. So what happened? Our political process encourages divisiveness, so one party pretty much just rejects whatever the other party supports, and gerrymandering ensures that more extreme candidates make it to Washington.

In other words, we've selected a biased sample that doesn't align with averages.

We can also look at income. Democrats love to point out income inequality, but real median income has been going up. Yes, poverty exists and some people probably have too much money, but most people are getting wealthier over time.

Individuals aren't important when talking about trends. Enough people choose their toothpaste based on ADA markings that the ADA marking is worth getting. Individuals may not care, but enough do that bad products tend to fail.

letting experts pass regulations

Regulators consistently don't act in consumers' best interests.

Look at ISPs, which have been able to cement a monopoly because they could get enough regulations in place to prevent competition (and tie up those who try with lawsuits). Or look at consumer electronics, we ended up in a duopoly of CPU manufacturers largely because of patents (again, another form of regulation).

Look at COVID restrictions, where we gave up liberty and hamstrung our economy with little to show for it. See Florida vs California COVID results) (latimes is biased in favor of California):

“One might’ve expected that the Floridas of the world would’ve done tremendously worse than the Californias of the world, and they did worse, but modestly worse, and there’s something to be learned there.”

The discussion here is interesting, but my point isn't to say one response was better or worse, but that sometimes the experts get things wrong. They expected a very different outcome than what happened. My state, for example, was somewhere in that middle. Here's roughly what we did:

• schools closed until the end of the school year, and then parents were allowed to choose remote school or in-class instruction for the next school year (we choose remote)
• stores needed to post public health notices and I think were required to have employees wear masks, but store policy was optional when it came to customers (most implemented social distancing controls)
• official recommendation to wear masks, but no mandate

I think this is a reasonable approach. We listened to the experts, but let the public ultimately decide what they wanted to do. A lot of people made stupid decisions, but most wore masks, and most workplaces and stores implemented more strict controls than required.

I think experts should absolutely weigh in, but in most cases, we should let the public ultimately decide. Individuals are irrational, but the masses tend toward rationality, though there's an argument to be made for specific cases like Tyranny of the majority (protecting minorities is one major function of government imo).

Individual needs matter, and if you try to ensure everything is safe, you ultimately end up in a "least common denominator" situation. Most people eat too much sugar, but restricting it restricts the freedom of those who don't have issues with it. Most people aren't obese, but many are, so we'd likely restrict access to things obese people have issues with. Likewise with drugs, media, gambling, prostitution, etc.

fox news... bad "news" organization

Sure, but only if your main concern is journalistic integrity. They are a "good" entertainment organization in that people enjoy watching them. The problems arise when people assume they are neutral, which is irrational.

This poll indicates most people believe their chosen news sources are biased:

Fifty-seven percent say their own news sources are biased, and 69% are concerned about bias in the news others are getting.

...

Three in four people (70%) worry that owners of media companies are influencing coverage. They also suspect that inaccuracies in reporting are purposeful, with 52% believing that reporters misrepresent the facts, and 28% believing reporters make them up entirely.

So I think the market is doing it's job of helping people see biases in news reporting. Whether people actually want unbiased news is another story. And I don't think we necessarily need unbiased news, provided people understand the bias of their preferred news source and have options with different biases.

cronyism is part of the free market

I'm going to have to disagree here.

A truly free market only exists when there is no government intervention whatsoever, so any government involvement necessarily makes the market less free. However, when we say "free market," we usually mean the government enforces separation between organizations to prevent cabals and other forms of backroom deals to promote competition and reduce the barrier to entry for newcomers to the market.

So with that definition of a free market (one with a set of rules to encourage competition), cronyism is by definition not part of the free market. In other words, any form of anti-competitive behavior is an abuse of the rules and thus an indication of governmental failure in crafting and/or enforcing the rules.

But you're right, if we're talking about the free market in the anarchist sense.

britain's current situation

From my understanding, that's a monopoly granted by the government (as in, they control the complete water system), which isn't at all what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the city being the provider (i.e. they own the pipes), and private companies being suppliers. If a private company can meet the standards of the city and provide the same good more efficiently, they can sell it to the city.

For example, let's discuss electricity. If someone decides to invest in solar power, they can sell that to the city, who will then distribute it to the rest of the grid. If someone else makes a hydroelectric dam, they could sell power generated that way to the city. And so on.

If there's only one company that can realistically provide a service, the city should build their own supply so there's competition. Private monopolies should never exist because that is antithetical to the concept I outlined above about a free market.

housing

A lot of the problem with housing is government getting in the way. The mere fact that NIMBYs prevent higher density housing is enough for me to distrust government here. People with influence will stand in the way of progress, if they're able to.

The reason suburbs are everywhere is because of zoning rules that only allow single family homes. If we instead allowed mixed zoning in more places, we'd see more lower cost housing, increased supply, and more use of mass transit due to higher population density.

healthcare

A lot of the problem here is lack of transparency in the system. I asked for a quote for a routine operation for my kid so I could compare options, and we had to call multiple people, most of which couldn't even give me a range, much less a quote.

There's a ton of cronyism going on between pharmaceutical companies, care providers, insurance companies, and probably regulators that keeps prices high. Here's what I think we should do:

1. make emergency care a public good - if a paramedic recommends an ambulance, it and all associated emergency care should be free, until you're stabilized
2. make health insurance something individuals deal with - bills go to the patient, who then submit claims to insurance, and insurance is limited in the complexity of their policies (i.e. can't allow/deny individual medicines or providers)
3. require all rates to be made public where possible, and have care providers' insurance handle deviations - an appendectomy costs $X, and the care provider is responsible for anything unexpected
4. insurance should not be tied to employment - employers can offer plans, but those plans must be exchangeable for cash and not terminate with employment
5. provide cash to those below a certain income level so everyone can afford medical insurance - for those who are rejected or who must pay some unreasonable amount for insurance, the government may choose to provide other plans (e.g. Medicare or Medicaid)
6. require insurance companies to provide long term insurance options that cannot be cancelled by the insurance company and can only increase in price with inflation

In general, I want health insurance to work more like auto insurance, but it should also be completely reasonable to not have any health insurance at all.

However, the system we have now is worse than universal healthcare due to the rampant cronyism. I'm worried that universal healthcare will have similar cronyism, but it'll at least be spread across taxpayers.