Economic Discussion from IOT

[Tani Coyote]

Subsidies are terrible things.

Depends what they're going towards.

Funding research is almost always a good idea, particularly if it helps make an existing good or service cheaper.

Giving more money to a business that is perfectly viable... not so much. The agricultural subsidies in the United States originated to help poor farmers, but with how much of the industry is now dominated by corporations that can shoulder the burden of lower prices... they serve no purpose. It'd be better to institute a guaranteed minimum income to look after the poor farmers (and poor in general) than keep the current system that primarily benefits the wealthy.

Though as I said in my prior post... there's a reason I'm strongly in support of making all campaign finance tax-funded.

 

[Crezth]

Giving more money to a business that is perfectly viable... not so much. The agricultural subsidies in the United States originated to help poor farmers, but with how much of the industry is now dominated by corporations that can shoulder the burden of lower prices... they serve no purpose. It'd be better to institute a guaranteed minimum income to look after the poor farmers (and poor in general) than keep the current system that primarily benefits the wealthy.

Are you an economics major, perchance? I'm leaning "no" posthaste but if I'm wrong kindly let me know.

 

[Cutlass]

In retrospect I hadn't thought of it in that manner. Fuel taxes achieve the same result without unnecessary startup costs or eating up labor that could be used elsewhere.

However, that doesn't affect the argument of if the actual maintenance of the roads could be done by private contractors for better efficiency. The main problem here is contracts can and have been influenced by politics (the state has no interest in efficiency so much as rewarding friends), so that wouldn't go over well. Really that just compels me further in favor of banning all private contributions and having all political campaigns funded through taxation. While I don't think a perfectly efficient government (or private market) will ever exist, it would certainly be improved by less clout in politics by money. Big businesses ultimately seek to squeeze out little ones (which basic economic theory says is bad for us in the long run), and so keeping their paws off politics would assist better economic decisions.

You are still making the assumption, without an actual reason for making that assumption, that the private sector can do these things more cheaply. And, further, that the private sector would, even if they could, do things more cheaply.

You have no basis for these assumptions other than political rhetoric.

There is a city in Colorado that privatized all the town maintenance. All the same workers fired by the city got hired by the private contractors. At half the pay. Savings to the taxpayer? None yet. Construction projects like the Boston Big Dig are contracted out. Savings to the taxpayer? When they finally get built they are years behind schedule and several times the original budget.

And this is where you fail in understanding basic economics, and basic government. The government does have at least some incentive to protect the taxpayer. The private contractor has the incentive to soak the taxpayer for as much money as possible.

That is, if they could do it cheaper, they would be fools to charge the taxpayer less.

As for devolution of responsibilities to the states: they are still a government with no concern for financial solvency. Of course giving them control of things is going to go over just as well as giving it to the federal government. The state is the state, doesn't matter if its leader titles itself President, Governor, or Mayor. A private business actually has to worry about turning a profit, or it's going to go bankrupt. A government can just borrow more money.

Again, that's just political theory. And radical political theory as well. Now granted a lot of governments have not managed their finances well. But how is that different from the private sector, where virtually every business eventually does the same?

 

[Ailedhoo]

Even the states with heavy government intervention in areas such as Europe are still capitalist at the end of the day. I wonder why?

In olden times many states in Europe had laws discriminating against women. Popular does not equal good.

Also capitalism, I must admit, has many forms, not made equally. Germany for instance as a social form of capitalism than the anglo laisey fair style of Britian and the USA.

There is also, of course, Scandinavia people argue try to mix ecomonics up a bit.

Could it be a country that is entirely state-run nine times out of ten ends up an atrocious failure?

The private sector generally does its job better than any government could. For the cases where it doesn't, that's what regulations and subsidies are for.

Your generisations are again generalisations.

The profit motive is powerful... it is why allocation of resources tends to improve dramatically when you are given ownership of something. Compare how your bathroom looks to a public one. People overall do not care about the prosperity of others as much as themselves.

There many ways one is motivated: profit is not the only way.

Also my bathroom is not used by many, many peoples in numbers high. Your example is rather weak when you consider the intent of fuction and capibicy. You cannot compare a toilet used by one or three people to one used by... a lot more people, especilly city ones like in Venice (requires a price to enter: infamous in dirt) which are used by countless numbers of tourists. The cleaners are set on scendrels. One can however see from here a consideration of purpose. For instance a hospital bathroom (such as a NHS hospital bathroom I visited back in the Isle of Man) is expected to be more cleaner than your average bathroom for health reasons (the bathroom I visited was very clean). Reasons are of note than simple generisations.

In the end your argument was not best on considerations but on pitiful generalisations. For instance why Britain has a higher healthcare score than the USA? Note that in the USA it is (almost perhapes) entirely private, with British having the NHS. Let it is the nation with a public service which has the highest healthcare records. Granted there are private health firms in the UK but this could lead to a consideration: France is reguarded half and half in public/private control of health, with it reguarded as exstreamly high.

Take this from a person who likes the idea of the mixed ecomony, a ecomony which takes venture with community.

Edit: Humans are neither born good or evil. They are born in blank canvases. They not pure.

 

[NinjaCow64]

As for devolution of responsibilities to the states: they are still a government with no concern for financial solvency. Of course giving them control of things is going to go over just as well as giving it to the federal government. The state is the state, doesn't matter if its leader titles itself President, Governor, or Mayor. A private business actually has to worry about turning a profit, or it's going to go bankrupt. A government can just borrow more money.

The government doesn't have a magical pot where it can borrow money from without serious consequences. In democratic countries at least having rampant debt could get one unelected.

Even the states with heavy government intervention in areas such as Europe are still capitalist at the end of the day. I wonder why?

Could it be a country that is entirely state-run nine times out of ten ends up an atrocious failure?

Of course it does, but that doesn't mean that some government intervention is unneeded. Anarcho-Capitalism would be just as bad as Communism.

I'll respond to more later, that post just jumped out at me for some reason.

 

[El_Machinae]

Keep in mind that there's no reason a government should be collecting a profit on their books. Their sole goal, fiscally, is to ensure growth in living standards for its citizenry. I'm of the opinion that the government should be buying positive externalities from the profits of previous social investments.

 

[Ailedhoo]

Of course it does, but that doesn't mean that some government intervention is unneeded. Anarcho-Capitalism would be just as bad as Communism.

There exists anarcho-collectivist theory and authoriterian capitalist markets.

Tani's argument that "public sector is doomed to fail" ignores existence and instead focus on making a picture that takes certain things and ignores others. I again relate to national health services: their presence allows security for the citizen. Note that the NHS survived Thatcher and although it has threats the rule exists that a politician in Britian that is trying to maintain election may face political suicide if they try to remove the NHS. Granted this has to do with our national idenity: as noted by the Olympics the NHS has became a big national icon of ours. The NHS has its problems but its existence is grand.

As for capitalism do not forget that goverment intervention does not mean uncapitalist unless you wish to call FDR a anti-capitlalist, while he was intrested in capitalism, despite what certain figures in the US who call anything that is unrestricted as "socialism!" might say. In fact socialism has a intrested consideration on its relation with capitalism (whether working within or against), leading to the classic divide among socialism as a ideological grouping.

The term "cultural hegamony" might be of interest in how ideas may come to dominanate.

Perhapes the most notable is that we are in judgement of ecomonics on a line instead of noting the different ideas. One of the great curses of TINA (There Is No Alterative) is to try to paint ecomonics as a area where there is only a select view ideas. Free Market and Planed Ecomony are not the only models: the "free market" model came in rival to Mercentilism, which was not a anti-capital ecomonic model per say. There are Mixed Ecomony and Green Ecomony. People have come up with more but I will research on that later, although I should point to the nature of ideas on the matter, especilly in relation to the diversity within models. There is more than one form of capitalism, just as there is more than one form of collectivism. Communual ownership need not mean state ownership for instance. In the end models have a diversity in consideration and I personally like a system which mixes together the good bits of certain systems.

 

[Double A]

Keep in mind that there's no reason a government should be collecting a profit on their books. Their sole goal, fiscally, is to ensure growth in living standards for its citizenry. I'm of the opinion that the government should be buying positive externalities from the profits of previous social investments.

Doesn't not being in debt for more than a few years help ensure that their goal will be reached?

 

[Cutlass]

Doesn't not being in debt for more than a few years help ensure that their goal will be reached?

Why would debt have anything to do with it?

 

[Tani Coyote]

Are you an economics major, perchance? I'm leaning "no" posthaste but if I'm wrong kindly let me know.

No, but I do try and keep up on history, and from all I see farming subsidies are far from their original goal of helping the poorest farmers. As memory serves, they came from a time when farmers produced so much the supply drove their prices (and incomes) down; with farming such a big employer at the time the subsidies made sense. Nowadays farming's far more consolidated under a few corporations, making the use of such subsidies questionable.

And, further, that the private sector would, even if they could, do things more cheaply.

They most likely will, but only if they have active competition. Companies inevitably try to cut eachother's throats through lower prices, driving prices for everyone down. Which is why it's key that price collusion be swiftly punished, as it negates the benefits of private business entirely.

As an example, say the main price of a good is about 100 dollars. One company moves overseas and can now produce it for half the price. Seeing the possibility to increase its overall market share, the company will slash its price to say, 50 dollars. The other companies, seeking to protect their own profit margins, will soon follow suit, before likewise shifting their prices down. The individual greed of all these businesses inevitably produced a good result for society, but only because they were competing. If there was no competition, the company would still charge 100 dollars, if not raising the price; why would it cut into its profit margins?

There is a city in Colorado that privatized all the town maintenance. All the same workers fired by the city got hired by the private contractors. At half the pay. Savings to the taxpayer? None yet. Construction projects like the Boston Big Dig are contracted out. Savings to the taxpayer? When they finally get built they are years behind schedule and several times the original budget.

Isn't that a natural monopoly, which is generally viewed as something the state should most certainly administer? Private entities produce better results only if there's competition to restrain their personal greed; logically if there is no competition there's no reason to give them the keys to something. The private sector's goal is never to benefit anyone but themselves.

The private contractor has the incentive to soak the taxpayer for as much money as possible.

Which really is the reason we need to ensure it's competitive; greed handcuffs itself. It sounds like the problem is contracts just aren't competitive enough. Ergo, I'd say they should be the domain of the government. A good or service's production should go to whoever can provide it best, public or private is irrelevant.

Now granted a lot of governments have not managed their finances well. But how is that different from the private sector, where virtually every business eventually does the same?

In a competitive market a business that bankrupts itself through irresponsibility will be replaced. This is why I'm supportive of the government working to lower barriers to entry for newer competitors.

The ability of a government to be replaced is much more negligible due to the duopoly we have at the moment. No matter how bad the Republican or Democratic politician drags the economy into the ground, countless people will stand by them solely because of the party affiliation.

But, this just lends credence to why the government should be responsible for services that just aren't competitive by nature; a government monopoly is at least beholden to public opinion on the price. It's also why we need to make elections more competitive.

There many ways one is motivated: profit is not the only way.

Profit's pretty effective though.

Altruism is good, but I don't think it's a viable model for mankind at the current juncture.

Your example is rather weak when you consider the intent of fuction and capibicy.

The point was people take care of things they own better than things they don't. Enclosure of farmland encouraged better management of resources since you couldn't free ride anymore; you were responsible for your plot's own success or failure. Before, you could have contributed nothing and taken from the group harvest.

Now, due to human error, it is logical to have the state be able to smooth over any failures on the part of the private sector.

In the end your argument was not best on considerations but on pitiful generalisations. For instance why Britain has a higher healthcare score than the USA?

Healthcare is more expensive in the USA. There are a myriad of reasons for this that go beyond whether hospitals are private or public, such as:

1. The number of doctors is restricted by the AMA.
2. It's enormously expensive to create new technologies due to patent laws and government regulations.
3. Insurance is private, which is just ridiculous since it's just pushing money around; the quality of money does not increase or decrease.
4. Food is much cheaper, leading to higher obesity rates and thus higher health costs.

Once these are addressed, we can review whether publicly-owned hospitals is the best method or not.

The government doesn't have a magical pot where it can borrow money from without serious consequences. In democratic countries at least having rampant debt could get one unelected.

Considering governments can readily get up to several hundred percentage points of GDP before they see any serious consequences, in effect it looks like they do have near-limitless reserves. It doesn't help politicians share the tendency for shortsightedness and like to kick the can down the road.

Anarcho-Capitalism would be just as bad as Communism.

Well yeah, but I'm arguing against the government at the moment. Arguing against the private sector comes later.

 

[Double A]

Why would debt have anything to do with it?

Quite frankly, it bothers people.

 

[El_Machinae]

Doesn't not being in debt for more than a few years help ensure that their goal will be reached?

The debt only matters if the assets and investments purchased don't have a sufficient return. Microsoft has debt, and will likely have debt forever. When it comes to debt, you compare the cost of holding the debt vs. the revenues you expect to get from the investment. Granted, there's some pretty crazy debt out there, and not all of it is justifiable, but that doesn't change my point. There's no reason debt has to be bad. This is the same logic as getting a loan for a car to get a better job, or getting a student loan, or whatever.

In fact, continual deficits needn't actually be a real concern. Or at least, they're not a de facto bad thing.

 

[sophie]

Deficit doesn't matter as long as the economy grows at a rate that is larger than the deficit. Such as right now.

 

[Ailedhoo]

The point was people take care of things they own better than things they don't. Enclosure of farmland encouraged better management of resources since you couldn't free ride anymore; you were responsible for your plot's own success or failure. Before, you could have contributed nothing and taken from the group harvest.

But farms lead to the question of an entire different case: local versus corporation. By this mean the issue of factory farming versus organic farming. I bring this up because it leads to the question of the explotive aspect of things, especilly important in the "Third World" with the issue of how farmers are treated by corporations. This is however a debate of another issue true but I bring this up because my argument was that "private=better" is a generalisation still, especilly since your argument forgets that the concept of volunteer collective farms was a consideration of Ghandi. Collective farming does not mean state owned.

Now, due to human error, it is logical to have the state be able to smooth over any failures on the part of the private sector.

That includes laws to punish supermarkets then for libel such as not checking their meat.

Also I must issue the exploitive nature again.

Healthcare is more expensive in the USA. There are a myriad of reasons for this that go beyond whether hospitals are private or public, such as:

1. The number of doctors is restricted by the AMA.

There are so many spots in jobs: does not explain the issue of insurrence and access to healthcare for the poor.

2. It's enormously expensive to create new technologies due to patent laws and government regulations.

...this differs from Britain because?

3. Insurance is private, which is just ridiculous since it's just pushing money around; the quality of money does not increase or decrease.

Yes: insurance is private.

4. Food is much cheaper, leading to higher obesity rates and thus higher health costs.

America is not alone in obesity: Britain has a obesity issue too...

Once these are addressed, we can review whether publicly-owned hospitals is the best method or not.

You have. Insurrence? High prices for people to get healthcare. Obesity? Dogding the question. Technologies? America the only place that develops stuff? Doctor limit? What?

Your issues answer the comparisent: in Britain the NHS is set as a model that has leaded to the idea of free healthcare. This does nto mean private healthcare is not avaible: there are in many NHS hospitals private sections set by private health firms. There is a current debate on the issue of privat healthcare within Britain. Still do buy their medicine form the chemist, unless they are lucky enough to be in Wales, although there is talks there on heathcare. Still these debates have in contrast with the American model, which is very infamous, Brits shocked at its nature. The issues you bring show the ineffeciencies of the Americans healthcare system and the obesity issues ignores other factors that lead to obesity. Perhapes if there was a system like the French or British models (France mixes up public and private very well) your ineffectivness might not be of the case.

Well yeah, but I'm arguing against the government at the moment. Arguing against the private sector comes later.

Marxism is, barring the Soviet taking of it, a anti-statist ideology. Communism does not have to mean state owned.

Also: intervention was set by FDR due to the laisey fair failures of the Republican goverment that FDR's Democrats succeeded over in a election.

Also: your arguments stated they were "capitalist" on a popularity contest. I am sorry but if you think there is only a line on ecomonic models then you are in need to consider that ecomonics is not dominated by "goverment control" and "company control." After all the banking crisis was a human made occurence. Deregulation started by Thatcher and Reagan had contributed greatly to this.

 

[Cutlass]

Quite frankly, it bothers people.

But not the right people at the right time. Remember that it is people who run for office "against the government" who are responsible for the deficits.

That said, debt is a tool. It can be used for good or crap. It's our misfortune that in the last 30 years its mostly been used for crap. But you cannot separate that crap from fact that it was caused by "small government" people.

They most likely will, but only if they have active competition. Companies inevitably try to cut eachother's throats through lower prices, driving prices for everyone down. Which is why it's key that price collusion be swiftly punished, as it negates the benefits of private business entirely.

As an example, say the main price of a good is about 100 dollars. One company moves overseas and can now produce it for half the price. Seeing the possibility to increase its overall market share, the company will slash its price to say, 50 dollars. The other companies, seeking to protect their own profit margins, will soon follow suit, before likewise shifting their prices down. The individual greed of all these businesses inevitably produced a good result for society, but only because they were competing. If there was no competition, the company would still charge 100 dollars, if not raising the price; why would it cut into its profit margins?

This is false. Companies left to their own devices are deadly opposed to competition. Competition only exists until one company can fight to the top, and then it ends for a long, long, time. Now it is true that companies in competition can produce great results. But that competition has to be maintained by government policy. It is not a naturally occurring thing.

So companies do not, inherently, and in and of themselves, drive down prices. They only do so in specific circumstances.

But companies also often do as much harm as good. Anything which drives down wages reduces the sum total of wealth creation.

Isn't that a natural monopoly, which is generally viewed as something the state should most certainly administer? Private entities produce better results only if there's competition to restrain their personal greed; logically if there is no competition there's no reason to give them the keys to something. The private sector's goal is never to benefit anyone but themselves.

Exactly. And that is why privatizing government services is so unlikely to produce good results.

Which really is the reason we need to ensure it's competitive; greed handcuffs itself. It sounds like the problem is contracts just aren't competitive enough. Ergo, I'd say they should be the domain of the government. A good or service's production should go to whoever can provide it best, public or private is irrelevant.

Right. But the problem is that neither of the sides that win it will then be competitive.

In a competitive market a business that bankrupts itself through irresponsibility will be replaced. This is why I'm supportive of the government working to lower barriers to entry for newer competitors.

The ability of a government to be replaced is much more negligible due to the duopoly we have at the moment. No matter how bad the Republican or Democratic politician drags the economy into the ground, countless people will stand by them solely because of the party affiliation.

But, this just lends credence to why the government should be responsible for services that just aren't competitive by nature; a government monopoly is at least beholden to public opinion on the price. It's also why we need to make elections more competitive.

The private sector does not operate like that. Look at GM: 50+ years of financial mismanagement, and they're still around.

 

[NinjaCow64]

Considering governments can readily get up to several hundred percentage points of GDP before they see any serious consequences, in effect it looks like they do have near-limitless reserves. It doesn't help politicians share the tendency for shortsightedness and like to kick the can down the road.

I'm not talking about people realising the economy is crap from debt all of a sudden. I'm talking about the constant whining from the opposition party(s) about the debt or "failure to get a surplus". I mean politicians in general like to minimise the amount of things that the opposition party(s) can complain about, it means that they have a better chance of getting reelected.

Exactly. And that is why privatizing government services is so unlikely to produce good results.

Yes! This is so true! Governments privatise way too much and they don't do it properly. To privatise something properly you would have to divide the government function in half or something. But what they do usually is turn the business into a corporation and sell a whole bunch of the stock on the open market. Unfortunately this is one of the areas where politicians are short sighted. Privatisation looks really good on paper, our government has just made loads of money! But unfortunately that isn't really all that good for the country. Take for example, Telstra. Telstra (or Telecom as it was known back in the day) wasn't all that efficient, but when the government sold it off it had a practical monopoly on phone and internet services due to their hardware monopoly. This meant that Telstra became one of the most incompetent organisations in Australian history, who cares about competence when your customers have literally nowhere else to turn to?

Luckily the National Broadband Network is putting a lot of power back into the government's hand, which will allow actual competition. Hopefully that will improve Telstra's standards. /rant

 

[Tani Coyote]

Collective farming does not mean state owned.

It's still not owned by single individuals who will show the most concern for its well-being. It's the tragedy of the commons; giving people a stake in something is the reliable way to encourage productive behavior.

Which is probably why cooperatives do fairly well, whereas government businesses often run themselves into the ground.

That includes laws to punish supermarkets then for libel such as not checking their meat.

Where have I ever disagreed against government regulation? I swear, it's like people assume I'm some anarcho-capitalist just because I say the private sector is more efficient.

There are so many spots in jobs: does not explain the issue of insurrence and access to healthcare for the poor.

This is ignoring the point. If you reduce the supply of care, but not demand for care, prices naturally go up. The AMA is an abomination unto our system and should be dismantled by government decree.

Actually I'm surprised the UHC countries haven't had this problem too, since they have stronger union laws normally...

...this differs from Britain because?

I doubt your patent laws are anywhere near as absurd as ours.

America is not alone in obesity: Britain has a obesity issue too...

We still lead the world in it. The effects rapidly compound over time.

It can be blamed on our sedentary lifestyle and the rapid availability of food. How to address this without causing market distortions or invasion of privacy is a tough one.

Obesity? Dogding the question.

Obesity's not dodging the question. It leads to a higher risk population which leads to more demand for care, which drives prices up. Logically the fatter your people are as a percentage, the more of a burden the care system is going to shoulder.

Technologies? America the only place that develops stuff?

Our government is protectionist and doesn't like the idea of using foreign technology where possible. There was a huge debate back in Obama's earlier years over whether we could import foreign drugs. To my knowledge that proviso didn't fly, because it would cut into domestic profit margins.

Protectionism is bad, bad, bad!

Doctor limit? What?

The American Medical Association is a union (they can call themselves a professional association all they want, it's still a union), and while I don't know the specifics, I presume they give you their seal of approval, which if you don't have, good luck practicing medicine. It's sort of like how you can make a movie and not have it rated by the MPAA, but no theater will show it.

Supply and demand takes over from that point.

The issues you bring show the ineffeciencies of the Americans healthcare system

Taking over the hospitals would not make any of these problems - strangled innovation, obesity - go away. At most we'd just see increased productivity and reduced bankruptcy from easier access to care, but the costs would still remain enormous.

Nor would providing free insurance solve the overall problem. We'd just be covering the costs. The entire healthcare system needs revision from the ground up.

Why not work to drive the costs down, rather than just sprinkling over them with taxpayer money? Underlying causes are what need addressing.

Now it is true that companies in competition can produce great results. But that competition has to be maintained by government policy. It is not a naturally occurring thing.

Which is what I've been arguing for this entire time. The private sector's efficiency is solely because its personal desire to maximise profits eventually leads it to handcuff itself due to having to compete against another's desire to maximise profits. Without competition a company can and will exploit everyone, as can be seen by monopolies and trusts.

Public or private a monopoly is generally going to produce poor results compared to a competitive alternative. However, a government monopoly generally has less horrid results because they still have to worry about being thrown out of office, which is the state equivalent of private bankruptcy.

Fields that are naturally competitive should almost definitely be in private hands; fields that aren't? I know for a fact companies will squeeze me for every penny they can if they don't have anyone else to fight with. At least I can throw the government out in the next election if they decide raising fees or taxes is a good idea.

But companies also often do as much harm as good. Anything which drives down wages reduces the sum total of wealth creation.

That depends. Lower prices may mean lower wages for some people, but whoever continues to have high wages will have their buying power increased, which normally offsets the difference; this is why free trade has more benefits than cost. Yes, some people are laid off, but those who aren't benefit enormously from the cheaper goods.

Though really, this is why I bring up the GMI again; it smooths over the many difficulties a low-wage population would have. It preserves the average person's ability to reliably consume, which was not protected prior to the Great Depression and is part of the reason it got so bad.

Exactly. And that is why privatizing government services is so unlikely to produce good results.

It never hurts to indulge in Devil's Advocacy to see the strengths and weaknesses of one's actual arguments though.

Right. But the problem is that neither of the sides that win it will then be competitive.

In that case contracting should be the domain of the state.

The private sector does not operate like that. Look at GM: 50+ years of financial mismanagement, and they're still around.

To me, that just sounds like a market failure. A new company should be able to rise up from nowhere and displace inefficient ones.

Also the government propping them up when we should just let other countries - who do the job better - take over the industry. Yes, the loss of automobiles is tragic, but rather than shed tears I'm going to focus on retraining all those newfound unemployed for something else.

What does make me cry is when people argue for tariffs. ...who usually claim to support the free market.

 

[Ailedhoo]

It's still not owned by single individuals who will show the most concern for its well-being. It's the tragedy of the commons; giving people a stake in something is the reliable way to encourage productive behavior.

...funny your using the tale used on the problems of corporate exploitation of the globe AKA why greed is not good?

Which is probably why cooperatives do fairly well, whereas government businesses often run themselves into the ground.

Corporations care in farming? Like the way companies in the Amazons? Or in the horse meat scandel? Greed is not good. The global commons does not support coporate exploitation. That is the message of the tale.

Where have I ever disagreed against government regulation? I swear, it's like people assume I'm some anarcho-capitalist just because I say the private sector is more efficient.

...it is the way you said it, in a generalisation. Companies are after all a political unit like a goverment.

This is ignoring the point. If you reduce the supply of care, but not demand for care, prices naturally go up. The AMA is an abomination unto our system and should be dismantled by government decree.

Actually I'm surprised the UHC countries haven't had this problem too, since they have stronger union laws normally...

The Royal Cottage of Nurses is one of the strongest voices in health care in the UK. I am just brining them up because they concerned about the the effectiveness of private healthcare.

I guess it is a case of Britain being more lucky in healthcare...

I doubt your patent laws are anywhere near as absurd as ours.

Power to Britain!

We still lead the world in it. The effects rapidly compound over time.

It can be blamed on our sedentary lifestyle and the rapid availability of food. How to address this without causing market distortions or invasion of privacy is a tough one.

But obesity in itself is not the only health concern and food is avaiabile in Britain, hence you cannot blame food alone. There is often more than one cause to a issue.

Although Britain has a rising organic farming movement in protest against factory farming, while America leads in factory farming, so there is some merit in your argument...

Obesity's not dodging the question. It leads to a higher risk population which leads to more demand for care, which drives prices up. Logically the fatter your people are as a percentage, the more of a burden the care system is going to shoulder.

Perhapes if you had a Jamie Oliver or a cultural consideration...

Our government is protectionist and doesn't like the idea of using foreign technology where possible. There was a huge debate back in Obama's earlier years over whether we could import foreign drugs. To my knowledge that proviso didn't fly, because it would cut into domestic profit margins.

Wait... America, infamous for couping nations that threatened to nationalist American controlled industries and lover of Americanising the world, is scared of importing foreign goods?!

Protectionism is bad, bad, bad!

Depends: it could work well in protecting local farmers but setting it like the Republicans in America did in the 1920s is a no no.

The American Medical Association is a union (they can call themselves a professional association all they want, it's still a union), and while I don't know the specifics, I presume they give you their seal of approval, which if you don't have, good luck practicing medicine. It's sort of like how you can make a movie and not have it rated by the MPAA, but no theater will show it.

Supply and demand takes over from that point.

...statistics? We will need to messure doctor per patient. This might best observe the issue. That is often the best method to messure how doctor limit may impact.

Taking over the hospitals would not make any of these problems - strangled innovation, obesity - go away. At most we'd just see increased productivity and reduced bankruptcy from easier access to care, but the costs would still remain enormous.

The NHS is not simply "take over hospitals" but is the body of health. The problem of obesity though can be tackled by a cultural shift but needless to say this will depend on how America reacts to such operations: Jamie Oliver faced opposion in America to his attempts to spread a British law that was set against junk food in school dinner halls.

Nor would providing free insurance solve the overall problem. We'd just be covering the costs. The entire healthcare system needs revision from the ground up.

Why not work to drive the costs down, rather than just sprinkling over them with taxpayer money? Underlying causes are what need addressing.

Is not America already spending a lot of taxplayer money on war... o sorry I mean defence spending? America needs to reform... then use the defence money to defend the poor from exploitation.

In the end I guess you need three things: reforms, reforms and a cultural change in food, especilly to organic food which will help lead to consideration to what is placed in the food. A health service can be part of this, perhapes a 50:50 service which the state pays for serious health issues but you pay for the less serious issues as my freind back in the Isle of Man once suggested.

 

[Cutlass]

Which is what I've been arguing for this entire time. The private sector's efficiency is solely because its personal desire to maximise profits eventually leads it to handcuff itself due to having to compete against another's desire to maximise profits. Without competition a company can and will exploit everyone, as can be seen by monopolies and trusts.

Public or private a monopoly is generally going to produce poor results compared to a competitive alternative. However, a government monopoly generally has less horrid results because they still have to worry about being thrown out of office, which is the state equivalent of private bankruptcy.

Fields that are naturally competitive should almost definitely be in private hands; fields that aren't? I know for a fact companies will squeeze me for every penny they can if they don't have anyone else to fight with. At least I can throw the government out in the next election if they decide raising fees or taxes is a good idea.

OK, Fair enough.

That depends. Lower prices may mean lower wages for some people, but whoever continues to have high wages will have their buying power increased, which normally offsets the difference; this is why free trade has more benefits than cost. Yes, some people are laid off, but those who aren't benefit enormously from the cheaper goods.

Though really, this is why I bring up the GMI again; it smooths over the many difficulties a low-wage population would have. It preserves the average person's ability to reliably consume, which was not protected prior to the Great Depression and is part of the reason it got so bad.

That only works for the micro. Not the macro. What people who make this argument tend to overlook is that labor=consumer. They are not 2 different groups, they are 1 group looked at from 2 different directions. And once you understand this, you understand that the loss of purchasing power to consumers through lower wages will always exceed the gain from lower prices. In the other direction of rising wages, the gain to purchasing power will always exceed the rising prices.

The reasons are that productivity is a variable, and wages are only 1 component of costs.

In that case contracting should be the domain of the state.

Which comes and goes with the political winds.

To me, that just sounds like a market failure. A new company should be able to rise up from nowhere and displace inefficient ones.

Also the government propping them up when we should just let other countries - who do the job better - take over the industry. Yes, the loss of automobiles is tragic, but rather than shed tears I'm going to focus on retraining all those newfound unemployed for something else.

What does make me cry is when people argue for tariffs. ...who usually claim to support the free market.

It is a market failure. But it is a failure that took a lifetime to correct, because there was no government policy in place to make it correct faster.

You look at barriers to entry, and you seem to think that means government. It can. But it can also simply be the industry. The capital requirements, money and human, to enter many businesses is huge.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Anyway, I'm moreso arguing for the privatisation of highways. They're more niche than ordinary streets, so their being privately owned doesn't strike me as much of an issue. You don't want to be tracked? Don't use the highway.

This is amazing. Especially considering almost the entirety of land-based transportation occurs on highways, and not using them would completely cripple that.

It'd make semi-truck incidents at traffic lights way more common though, if that's your thing.