Economic Discussion from IOT

[NinjaCow64]

Yeah, this was an economic discussion that was happening in the Spam thread in IOT and the mods asked us to stop or move it to OT, so I'm moving it.

I don't know why I'm debating economics when I'm not accruing post count for it but why not?

Well now you can!

In a country that makes such great use of cars as the United States though there is merit to keeping the roads publicly-funded and operated. Were travel more of a luxury I could see making them private as an option.

I dunno, private roads just seem like a bad idea. I don't have any evidence to back it up, just a feeling. And I'd rather not see governments privatise more things.

Let's make a deal. I'll support private ownership of all highways, on the condition that the government pay for people to put e-tolling receivers on their cars. A small expense on the government's part will lead to enormous efficiency by the private sector.

That's not necessarily true. And the removal of tolls would remove lots of money from the government. And we'd probably see more tolls that are more expensive so the roads are actually profitable. And no one wants that.

They weren't built entirely privately though. The government helped out a lot by giving them land and other bonuses to assist in the construction. This is one of the government's best economic tools: the subsidisation of private industry. Space likely would be miles behind what it is now if not for state investment; nowadays, even with NASA's gutting, the private sector is able to pull up the slack.

So very true.

Which is why it's important to keep the government's spending projects simple. Ultimately it's a better idea to give the money to smaller actors, public or private, that actually know what they're doing. It's the same reason transfer payments are best made as a lump sum, rather than creating food stamps, healthcare, subsidised housing, etc. and then creating a gigantic bureaucracy to oversee them all.

I really don't get where all this "Public = Inefficient, Private = Efficient" comes from. I've seen things become ten times more inefficient after privatisation. And the private and public sectors are both run by people. Why should it make too much of a difference?

As for crowding out, that's mitigated if the money is spent on infrastructure that could stimulate further economic activity, such as better transportation.

It is.

This all sounds good but when one considers the glorious Soviet Republics of Germany, Italy and Japan are kicking our teeth in in the fields of robotics, automobiles, and video games, and electronics in general, I think we can see that our current education system needs serious revamping (primarily cheaper access to college). We have a gigantic pool of unskilled labor, but rather than trying to solve that we debate raising the minimum wage for that same pool of unskilled laborers.

Have you ever watched Waiting for Superman? Yeah, that film makes me cry because it's illustrated how bad the education system is.

I've spoken with Canadians on the issue. Apparently a lot of their worse wait times are due to obsolete record keeping and such. Really I see no reason to eliminate profit from healthcare entirely (people are more responsible and efficient when money's at stake), but we simply cannot ignore it.

Oh so THAT'S why people think the private sector is more efficient than the public. Couldn't you just replicate this by making Public Servants risk their jobs if their decision had bad consequences?

There is no reason for insurance to be private, however. It is just taking money from one person and shelling it out to others. Sounds no different from single payer when you think about it, except you have a profit motive on one hand and none on the other. Sounds like a gigantic waste of money to have private insurance; while the option should be there, I see no reason singlepayer shouldn't be standard, considering we're already halfway there with free insurance for the poor and elderly.

That's true, but I don't think I entirely understand the singleplayer analogy...

As for actual hospitals and doctors, those should definitely be kept private, because that's an actual service that can deteriorate in quality if the state uses regulations. Research needs more government funding though, and lots of it. We also need to weaken the FDA; if you're on your deathbed are you honestly going to care if a bureaucrat has approved a drug that could save your life? Businesses ultimately need to cover costs... and the bureaucracy of the FDA piles tons of operating costs onto drug development.

Public and private hospitals have their place in a Capitalist society.

This is very true. Like the patent protections that are given to drugs. The profit motive in this case strangles healthcare; there are plenty of cures sitting on the shelf because the billions of dollars needed to be paid in royalties. This is the tragedy of the uncommons; some people are so devoted to profit they put a gigantic block to market efficiency. Patents definitely need revision in the field of healthcare for this reason.

I think patents need revision full stop. Take the video game market. Apparently Namco owns the patent on minigames in loading screens. When you can have patents for something so vague then you know something is wrong.

Not true at all, firstly because there hasn't been Communism, and secondly because revisionist (ie. non-Stalinist, non-Maoist, non-Hoxist, non-Juche, etc.) State Socialism has worked very well.

The reason why there isn't Communism is because it is an impossible goal unless the fundamental nature of mankind changes, i.e we all stop being greedy asshats. And I mean literally everyone. And in what countries has Sate Socialism worked? I do not know of any.

Greed is good, BUT only if the system in place can prevent it from becoming rampant and out of control and can direct it towards good causes.

It doesnt matter how much greed exists if it doesn't benefit the average person.

Truer words hath not been spoken.

I was never truly fascist. I always believed in a free market. I just hate democracy. I think the common man doesn't understand economics or politics well enough to vote properly and would rather a dictator who didn't infringe upon civil liberties then a democratically elected president who did.

People started calling my a fascist for this belief, even though it wasn't really fascism, and the name stuck.

Ah, okay, that makes a lot more sense. The problem with dictators is it is very hard to get rid of them once they are corrupt, whereas it is pretty easy to get rid of corrupt democratically elected leaders (assuming they don't try and disband parliament or something).

Well I did read the study, America was one of the best or the best in every category except for two of them:
1. Health equality: How much the healthcare system takes care of the poor compared to those of the rich.
2. Spending on healthcare: Its ironic I know, Americas government spends more on healthcare then Britain, despite people considering it to be private. Reason Magazine has a few good articles that explain how Americans healthcare program isn't a free market healthcare program.

If you ignore those two categories, America ends up as 6th instead of 37th.

But those two categories ARE important. Ignoring those two categories is like saying that North Korea is the freest nation on Earth except in the two categories of Human Rights Violations and Democratic Leadership.

Having a huge gap between the rich and the poor never ends well, just look at Tsarist Russia and the crap that came after. And if America is spending more money on healthcare yet they are ranked worse on a WHO list than countries that spend less then you need serious reform.

Stories that sell are stories that people want to read, and people are far more interested in disasters then good news. However even government run news agencies like CBC over reported swine flu, so I wouldn't argue that it was a free market doing it.

I seriously doubt that the Public sector reported on Swine Flu than the Public.

Two tier is better then public, but over all private is best at innovation, and innovation is best providing healthcare in the long run.

Two-tier, or Social Capitalism according to Wikipedia, is better than just Public. However just Private is bad as well.

Say if we were rate all healthcare systems out of 10.
Country As healthcare for the poor: 4/10
Country As healthcare for the rich: 10/10

Country Bs healthcare for the poor: 3/10
Country Bs healthcare for the rich: 3/10

Country B would get ranked higher then country A in this situation because its more equal, even though it does a worse job at treating lower incomes.

That is true, however it could happen the other way round. I'll give you a counter example.

Country A's healthcare for the poor: 1/10
Country A's healthcare for the rich: 10/10

Country B's healthcare for the poor: 4/10
Country B's healthcare for the rich: 4/10

In that situation Country A would be ranked higher than Country B as Country A's average would be 5/10 whereas Country B's average would be rated 4/10. However, I would much rather have Country B's healthcare than Country A's.

Not really, the swine flu vaccine was relitvely cheap, and was actually free in Canada. Profit motive is always good, but in the swine flus case there wasn't that much profit made.

Just because it is cheap doesn't mean it is unprofitable.

Nope, long run public sector sees less innovation. Drug companies in american are far better at innovating then in Europe simply because of the profit motive.

That is true, which is why I believe in the Free Market.

Risk is a risk. Some people may chose to take risks if they feel the benefits are worth it, nothing wrong with that.

There isn't, but there must be punishment for failure.

its impossible to allocate resources correctly in an absolute monarchy. But as I said earlier, I would rather a dictatorship that protects civil and economic liberties then a democracy that doesn't.

But dictatorships rarely do that. And governments can be changed in a democratic system with minimal bloodshed if the government is corrupt, whereas dictatorships cause major bloodshed.

Again read my entire statement rather then just debating one section of it. People living entirely off welfare benefits aren't producing anything. If you have a job then your not living entirely off welfare benefits...

That isn't true, someone could simply be in between jobs while living off welfare benefits.

It shouldn't have been the governments land to give.

The government has SOME land.

For every example given of a subsidy that worked, I could provide at least 2 for ones that did.

The easiest is agriculture subsidies. 360 Billion a year in Europe and 25 billion a year in America, economists agree its not lowing food prices.

Yeah, except that might be because America isn't the largest productor of food. That would be given to China, India or Russia.

I can agree with this statement, but very rarely does the government truly know whats its doing, and truly acts to maximize its achievement

If the government didn't know what it was doing, then there would be anarchy.

The only reason why its done like this is it can get more funding this way. I wouldn't call that better...

More funding should mean better quality but it doesn't always. In those situations something needs to be done.

And I do support public transportation, but again it should be local not federal.

What is wrong with federal public transportation?

And Americas federal government spends more per capita on education then those of Germany, Italy or Japan. Every socialists favourite country (Sweden) doesn't have public education, its entirely voucher programs.

Finland is the only country that outspends America (per capita) in public education AND gets better results from their students. All the other countries that perform better then America on public education spend less money on it. Clearly America needs to spend less, not more on education.

That isn't necessarily true. It just means America needs to be more efficient with funding.

Subsidizing student loans is why college has gotten so expensive, and I think primary and secondary educaiton need more reform then college. 27 of the 30 best colleges in the world are in America, so post-secondary education is not a problem for them. Its their 21st best secondary school education that is hitting them hard.

Yep, that's completely right.

Thats not the only reason, the price system is a good way of determining whether or not your properly allocating resources.

I guess one could make that argument and I agree. If health insurance is government run but hospitals are all private you would see better results then having public hospitals.

That said, I don't think insurance should completely cover treatments. The countries with the best healthcare systems adjusted for spending, have it that require people to pay for at least some portion of their treatment.

Problem in America is people don't know how much their treatment is going to cost them, and those who do don't care because insurance will cover it. If the cost of treatments was public knowledge and insurance would only cover 80% of the treatment then people would actually start caring about costs of treatments and hospitality would actually have to compete for prices.

I guess that could work, but there is something that seems bad about having hospitals compete with each other considering there are people's lives on the line.

There are other posts in the thread but I don't have the time or the energy to respond properly to them right now. Now discuss and enjoy.

 

[Kaitzilla]

Wow


I'll toss some stuff in for America's health care system.

Obamacare made things way worse and more unaffordable. According to this document released by the Republicans, 2014 looks like 50% increases in premiums.
http://energycommerce.house.gov/sit....gov/files/analysis/20130305PremiumReport.pdf

Then there is the mystery cost of complying with 20,000+ pages of new regulations from Obamacare, stacked floor to ceiling as more get generated everyday.
http://twitchy.com/2013/03/12/whoa-...-of-the-20000-pages-of-obamacare-regulations/

Many business are freaking out by cutting everyone down to 29 hour workweeks and firing employees to get under the magic 50 number.
http://hamptonroads.com/2013/02/state-workers-parttime-hours-capped-due-health-law
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_ers_74rfAHiGtYU2nHmnlIhotL


Doubtless all this economic damage will be placed on the Republicans and the Sequester. Increasing total government spending a little this year instead of a lot is way more damaging than 20,000+ pages of new medical regulations.

 

[NinjaCow64]

Wow

IOTers don't debate often, but when they do, they debate HARD.

 

[SamSniped]

Subbing for the sheer ridiculousness of this.

 

[Double A]

It wasn't a crack about CK2, but it was inspired by it.

If anything bad happens due to the increased publicity, I'm blaming the mods.

 

[warpus]

Greed is good, BUT only if the system in place can prevent it from becoming rampant and out of control and can direct it towards good causes.

Farting is good too, but only if you have a system in place that can prevent it from becoming rampart and out of control and can direct it towards good causes like power generation and heating.

It's not that greed is inherently good in some way - it's just that in some cases one sideeffect of greed can be innovation and other things that can make you potentially rich.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

I followed the posts back to IOT. I...think I won't go back there for a while.

 

[SamSniped]

"You may check out any time you like,
But you can never leave!"

 

[NinjaCow64]

Well I'm leaving this debate then. Due to all the infractions I have previously gotten in OT, I have vowed never to return there.

I debate on other sites that have more respect for freedom of speech.

If you want to keep debating me, take it up in PM

That's a shame, he's probably the biggest debator in IOT. Oh well. We will manage (I think).

 

[Robert Can't]

But where even is Argentina?

 

[Quackers]

Is it me or do Aliedhoo's posts read like a ******** shakespeare?

Moderator Action: Unprovoked attack on a member who hasn't consented to participation in the rougher wranglings of the Tavern. This, in combination with your posts in the Asexuality thread, earns you three days off. That's not a whole lot of time in which to grow up, but please try.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[ace99]

I don't know what IOT is but apparently its full of lolberterians so thanks for the warning.

 

[Ailedhoo]

Er NC... I did not give my permission for me to be set in a Off-Topic debate.

...and iDuce had not proven to be a good debater and a good person: he is a fan of Pinochet. That is all. Compare and contrast with Jeho, Thor, Sone... good debaters they are.

If you want to talk ecomonics then here is a tip: make a original thead than continue a badly done debate in another section.

In the end this thread has only given IOT a bad name. I suggest you learn NC and not try to bring drama from another section to here, especilly without permission of the people involved.

Is it me or do Aliedhoo's posts read like a ******** shakespeare?

Is it me or are you a rude biggot?

The rudeness even before I enter this thread! NC: could you ask for permission next time!

 

[NedimNapoleon]

I don't know what IOT is but apparently its full of lolberterians so thanks for the warning.

No, we just have 2. You should czech it out.

 

[Ailedhoo]

IOT is not a bad place. I recommend you go there...

...just as I repeat my annoyance of being forced into a thread I did not ask for.


Link to video.

 

[JohannaK]

We know for some reason you dislike (if not outright hate) OT for whatever reason, ailed, but here's where these discussions should take place.

 

[Ailedhoo]

We know for some reason you dislike (if not outright hate) OT for whatever reason, ailed, but here's where these discussions should take place.

True but discussing should not be dought with drama that was in the IOT. NC should not have bought the mess here and if he wanted a debate he should not have quote I and others.

In the Tavern rules:

Flaming, trolling or insulting someone who is independent of any conversation.
With 'lighter moderation' comes some tolerance for minor flaming of people that you are debating in a given thread. However, this is on the basis that if someone doesn't want to engage in that style of debating, then they can just stay out of the thread / forum. Flaming someone who is not there to defend themselves, or trolling them, is a jerk thing to do. This extends to not flaming someone in a different thread as well.

I was not asked permission by NC. Hence this thread breaks the one rule of the Tavern!

 

[Tani Coyote]

I dunno, private roads just seem like a bad idea. I don't have any evidence to back it up, just a feeling. And I'd rather not see governments privatise more things.

At one point in my life the idea of government insurance rubbed me the wrong way too, but then I saw the economics of it. The same can be with privatisation of roads; it strikes us as odd but that's only because we're so used to them being public. When something is public, it is generally because the private sector can't provide it reliably enough. If the private sector can do a better job handling the road system though, why not give it to them? It's simple economics that whoever does one task best should be the one to do it. It's the same reason tariffs are a ridiculous idea, because they prevent jobs from going to whom can do them most efficiently.

That's not necessarily true. And the removal of tolls would remove lots of money from the government. And we'd probably see more tolls that are more expensive so the roads are actually profitable. And no one wants that.

Provided private firms have competition, price wars will inevitably drive the pricing down. If two firms are making a one hundred dollar profit, one will inevitably cut it to a fifty dollar profit via lower prices, in the hopes of driving the other out of business. The rival firm will drop their price as well. This is why competition produces such wonderful results. The reason roads are government-built and maintained is because traditionally it wasn't viable for private businesses to really use them on a wide scale (never mind the huge boon to business from the better transportation); with new technology, however, private administration of roadways is very viable.

As for the funding for the government, why does that matter if we can reduce the need for government entirely? As it stands the tolling systems pay for the roads primarily. Logically if we get rid of the roads, there's no need for the government to finance them anymore. We shouldn't treat government revenue as the be all and end all; we need to evaluate what the private sector doesn't do properly, get the government involved there, and then address how to pay for the involvement.

I really don't get where all this "Public = Inefficient, Private = Efficient" comes from.

Simple. The private sector has to worry about bankruptcy, so it spends its money more efficiently most of the time. If you have a million dollars to spend on a business, you will try to invest it wisely. The government? They will spend the million, then borrow another million or two and spend that on top of it. This is why it is necessary to try and keep the government's tasks as simple as possible, because otherwise a bureaucratic nightmare will steadily form.

I've seen things become ten times more inefficient after privatisation. And the private and public sectors are both run by people.

That likely has to do with other factors. There are some things private businesses just aren't ready to deal with. However, there are people who just militantly support privatisation for privatisation's sake, which leads to these sorts of disasters. As I mentioned, when it comes to economic roles, you should give to each actor what they can do best. It doesn't matter if that's the state or an entrepreneur.

Oh so THAT'S why people think the private sector is more efficient than the public. Couldn't you just replicate this by making Public Servants risk their jobs if their decision had bad consequences?

Theoretically, but the problem is that ultimately it's elected officials who call the shots. And those officials care about re-election, not an efficient bureaucracy.

Never mind, there's another dilemma. The government is irresponsible because it does not need to operate within a balanced budget (how many private individuals do you know who could take debt several times what they make in a year?). However, if we force a balanced budget on the state, that means they are handicapped when they are needed most, such as in a recession. So, we can't really limit the government the same way as a private company.

That's true, but I don't think I entirely understand the singleplayer analogy...

An insurance company takes 1000 dollars from ten people and spends 5000 on the insurance claims. The government takes 1000 dollars averaged out from ten people and spends 5000 on insurance claims. There is effectively no difference between the two, except government insurance a) falls less hard on the poor due to being funded via taxation, and b) has no profit motive so ultimately consumes less of each person's income, allowing them to spend it elsewhere.

Public and private hospitals have their place in a Capitalist society.

Ultimately though, public hospitals are going to need based on volunteer labor; most professionals are going to opt for the better wages at a private hospital. Attempts to restrict doctors' wages or arbitrarily control what procedures they can do are not good in the long run. Because of this, I think the solution to America's medical problems is single-payer insurance, better funding for medicine and less bureaucracy in developing medicine, and an increased amount of doctors.

On that last part, doctors' unions need to be cracked open, and hard. The American Medical Association is partly to blame for our high care costs, as they keep our number of doctors low on purpose to protect the existing doctors' wages.

I think patents need revision full stop. Take the video game market. Apparently Namco owns the patent on minigames in loading screens. When you can have patents for something so vague then you know something is wrong.

That is ludicrous indeed, but healthcare patents need the most attention because things like that are where universal healthcare programs fail. The current proposal is that we basically just cover all costs, rather than working to reduce those costs. Rather than having government healthcare, we should instead strive to make healthcare cheap enough to a point the government isn't necessary, as we have in the vast majority of cases.

 

[NinjaCow64]

I've removed all quotes about Aliedhoo in the thread. Please do not mention him or quote him here again or I will flag.

Also I will respond later, but right now I am procrastinating and should really stop. Yeah.

 

[Peck of Arabia]

There's still two quotes of [redacted]'s in the OP, about a third of the way down