What is wrong with Socialism?

[Merkinball]

Sorry, but this isn't really an attemp to quote war you, so here are the corporate examples I know of that are detoriating but so superior on the market that resistance competition is futile:

EB Games
Meat quality in Danish supermarkets
Microsoft - and this one is difficult to revert to boot since it's like having patent on reading.
Oil

I don't know what EB games are. I don't know anything about Danish meat. But it doesn't sound like an economic problem, but a Danish problem.

Microsoft? Come again? Are you sure? Are you saying that the first version windows was better than what we have now? Better graphics? Faster? More efficient? Their games have better graphics? Is that what you are suggesting?

Oil? What? 87 octane is 87 octane. And I'm pretty sure that our oil refining processes today are extremely better than just ten years ago.

I really got to thinking about this stuff yesterday while I was fishing, and I concluded that in all reality there's not a whole lot that's worse than what it used to be. Can someone name something that people fifty years ago would say, "Wow, this is crappy quality."

I don't have time to go into all of Innon's post. But I will bring up one point because it is related to it. It relates to the comment about how people at the lower end are forced to buy cheaper, less quality stuff. I'm going to object to this notion.

When it comes to buying stuff, we may not all have the same quantity of money to spend, but we still make the same rational decisions on what we buy. For many people this ends up boiling down to "quantity versus quality." And we all make these decisions on our own, and we all deem what is best for ourselves. And I would argue that everyone on this board makes these decisions. We all weigh what is most important to use, both in a quantity versus quality spectrum, and on an individual basis. I buy quality food, drink quality beer, buy quality tires. But my car, some of my furniture, my everyday clothing...all that stuff is of lesser quality. Those things aren't as important to me. My cell phone doesn't matter much, so I got the cheapest one I could get. But I really love listening to rich music, so I drop coin on good headphones.

Everyone has their own individual interests, and I would argue that there isn't a person on this planet that doesn't have things that they splurge on. On the flip side, the vast majority of people also have no problem buying something that, to them, doesn't make any sense to buy the best of the best on. And this is true in any western nation. People value things differently. And we should be allowed to value things differently. Companies should be able to gauge what consumers want and give it to them. So long as products are safe, and so long as dangerous products are not being produced in negligence, then there is absolutely no reason at all to change anything.

*sigh* back to work I guess...

 

[downtown]

I really got to thinking about this stuff yesterday while I was fishing, and I concluded that in all reality there's not a whole lot that's worse than what it used to be. Can someone name something that people fifty years ago would say, "Wow, this is crappy quality."
.

Sportswriting. Actually, a lot of journalistic stuff

 

[Merkinball]

Sportswriting. Actually, a lot of journalistic stuff

Well...

Yeah...

 

[Angst]

Well...

Yeah...

Again, food has declined in quality generally; where I live, at least during the last ten years. Quality of art, which has become capitalized p).

And I meant EA Games; regarding the Windows issue, I rather considered it compared to other products of the same term, and considered the fact that Microsoft is abusing its (semi)monopoly currently; at least due to my humble opinion. I won't discuss this further with you though.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

the fact that there are people out there willing to pay both the money for government services AND the equivelant private ones, while using only the latter, already proves that the latter has to be at least twice as cost efficient to them

Come again?

 

[Angst]

the fact that there are people out there willing to pay both the money for government services AND the equivelant private ones, while using only the latter, already proves that the latter has to be at least twice as cost efficient to them

This makes no sense. I don't visit two hospitals per treatment, especially not when one of them is less expensive to me than the crappy system in the states.

Also, your post pwns itself due to bad grammar. And not the good way.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Youtube.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Convert opponents?

Blimey, you think anyone will change their minds based on arguments, links, youtube clips? Nothing short of divine intervention is needed for that. (j/k of course)

I simply didn't (and still don't) understand your point, and would have read an explanation if you had one. I do not care to listen to youtube clips which I cannot address, which I cannot quote easily without finding some sort of transcript.

 

[Angst]

confederalsocialist explains in more detail http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irsEVye45Jg&feature=channel_page

a) You are doing it wrong. YouTube links are not proper as arguments; instead posting actual studies would be correct. Anyone can YouTube anything. The fact that you are trusting a source so unviable leaves your argument quite weak, and therefore the argument's attempt to "convert" us remains unsuccesful.

b) The video itself isn't even properly arguing for its sake; it's mere postulates. There is no guarantee for privately founded services to be better than governmental; that video simply assumes that. Additionally, what the video seems to lack is the understanding that governmental services compared to private services aren't comparable that way since governmental services are not supposed to make money, while private services are supposed to make money. Therefore, as governmental services are supposed to only balance out its own loss; therefore a service costing 100$ to provide, everything included, only costs 100$ when provided by the government, compared to a service costing 100$ to provide from the private sector will cost more money, like 110$, as the corporation has to grow in size. The government/state/nation/whatever has to grow in size as well, but the same growth depends on the growth of non-governmental organizations (corporations that is), taxating them by percentage, therefore increasing in size, and offering even better public services for the people for those who can't afford them.

and yes my posts pwn

You got it wrong.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

u wont waste time anyway even reading

This I would do.

or watching an iformative clip, i wont waste time debating

I am watching it now.

Company B would charge more than 100 for their 10 utils. Private companies need profit.

Now we get to my problem, I want to quote parts of the clip, but I need to go back and retype their comment before I can do that. If this would have been your argument, I could simply quote the part of your post I wanted to refer to. This is wasting time indeed.

So if you use company B, you have 10 utils for 200 is wrong. You have 20 utils for 200. Since you are still free to use the utils of company A.

Second example with the roadcompany C, 10 utils for 100 dollars, or 29 utils for 200 dollars.

I stopped there, since it's really not an easy way to have a discussion.

 

[El_Machinae]

the fact that there are people out there willing to pay both the money for government services AND the equivelant private ones, while using only the latter, already proves that the latter has to be at least twice as cost efficient to them

Come again?

I'll use an example.

I've already paid, through my taxes, for a CT scan. If I use this CT scan, I can do so without any additional cost, since I've already paid for it.

If I were to go and get a CT scan done at a private clinic, I'd be charged money for it. Let's suppose it was $100.

Now, if xarthaz (who pays no taxes in his utopia) was to get that scan, he'd buy it if it was worth $100 to him. He perceives $100 (or more) in value. OTOH, I already have a free one (one I've already paid for), and so if I were to pay $100 for a private one, that private one is worth more than a $100 to me, since a cheaper 'free' CT scan didn't meet my needs. I've paid more than $100 for my CT scans.

Now, the mistake he's making is that he is assuming that his CT scan is worth $100 to him. It could be, but probably it isn't. It might be worth many times that to him, and he's getting a huge discount on what he's willing to pay, because the market has set the price at $100

 

[Cutlass]

the fact that there are people out there willing to pay both the money for government services AND the equivelant private ones, while using only the latter, already proves that the latter has to be at least twice as cost efficient to them

You really just don't know what the private sector is, do you?

 

[Merkinball]

I'll use an example.

I've already paid, through my taxes, for a CT scan. If I use this CT scan, I can do so without any additional cost, since I've already paid for it.

If I were to go and get a CT scan done at a private clinic, I'd be charged money for it. Let's suppose it was $100.

Now, if xarthaz (who pays no taxes in his utopia) was to get that scan, he'd buy it if it was worth $100 to him. He perceives $100 (or more) in value. OTOH, I already have a free one (one I've already paid for), and so if I were to pay $100 for a private one, that private one is worth more than a $100 to me, since a cheaper 'free' CT scan didn't meet my needs. I've paid more than $100 for my CT scans.

Now, the mistake he's making is that he is assuming that his CT scan is worth $100 to him. It could be, but probably it isn't. It might be worth many times that to him, and he's getting a huge discount on what he's willing to pay, because the market has set the price at $100

But don't you understand that you're going to a create an attitude where people are going to seek medical stuff that they don't need under the idea that they've already paid for it, and therefore should recieve it? Enter the regulating rationing beauracracy at this point right here...

 

[potatokiosk]

This I would do.
I am watching it now.

Company B would charge more than 100 for their 10 utils. Private companies need profit.

Now we get to my problem, I want to quote parts of the clip, but I need to go back and retype their comment before I can do that. If this would have been your argument, I could simply quote the part of your post I wanted to refer to. This is wasting time indeed.

So if you use company B, you have 10 utils for 200 is wrong. You have 20 utils for 200. Since you are still free to use the utils of company A.

Second example with the roadcompany C, 10 utils for 100 dollars, or 29 utils for 200 dollars.

I stopped there, since it's really not an easy way to have a discussion.

Can you get "utils" from both company A's road and company B's road? The video never said you couldn't but it seemed to imply that they were alternatives and the road user was supposed to pick one.

However I think the video fails pretty hard. When someone is deciding whether to use road A or road C, they have this decision to make:
- pay $0 for road A to get 10 "utils"
- pay $100 for road C to get 19 "utils"
So it's simply a matter of whether $100 dollars is worth 9 utils to the individual which we can't determine with the given information.

The video made two mistakes: first, it acted like the money already paid in taxes did matter from the consumer's point of view. It doesn't matter because even if they didn't use the road they wouldn't get the tax money back. Second, it assumed that consumers are trying to maximize the ratio of utility to money spent, when what consumers really do is try to achieve maximum utility with the money they have to spend, which is not the same thing.

That said, the video did have a decent general point, which is that a service that is funded by taxes has an advantage over a service that is funded by charging its users and could potentially prevent people from getting the best quality possible.

 

[Camikaze]

But don't you understand that you're going to a create an attitude where people are going to seek medical stuff that they don't need under the idea that they've already paid for it, and therefore should recieve it?

It's better that people take pre-emptive measures in this regard, than wait until there actually is a problem. Pre-emptive health care could actually reduce the burden on medical facilities.

 

[plarq]

For those complaining Microsoft: it is not your fault that you don't use Linux.

 

[Narz]

Again, food has declined in quality generally

True.

Dramatic decline in the last 50 years

 

[Angst]

Thank you Narz.

snip

So, dear xarthaz, would you care to explain why you avoided answering to my and El_Machinae's quite decent arguments, and instead threw your words against this post? Not that there was anything wrong with the replied post though.

 

[Merkinball]

It's better that people take pre-emptive measures in this regard, than wait until there actually is a problem. Pre-emptive health care could actually reduce the burden on medical facilities.

"pre-emptive" healthcare only takes you so far. One reason costs are out of control in America is because people demand to have medical stuff done to them that they simply do not need. And from what I understand, this also has helped to lead to large wait times in nations where socialized medicine exists.

 

[Angst]

But don't you understand that you're going to a create an attitude where people are going to seek medical stuff that they don't need under the idea that they've already paid for it, and therefore should recieve it? Enter the regulating rationing beauracracy at this point right here...

Oh, and did you know European hospitals are overrun by waiting clients who do not need treatment, but show up to get their skin removed and reattached? And that medicine isn't unhealthy in most cases unless it actually helps the patient from being sick, therefore the doctors do not have to sign recepts anyways?