The problem is big government. Big government provides a fertile ground for corruption, similar to what you mentioned. Moreover, with small government, the government can't provide special interests with as much handouts, etc.
I can't see how anyone in their right mind could believe what you just mentioned and be pro-big government. It doesn't make sense.
it doesn't make sense because you are not understanding what i'm saying ...
who is making the gov't big!?? ... why does it suck at running pretty much every program? ... sometimes what seems to be a failure is actually intended ...
and really the issue isn't the size of gov't ... it is the efficiency of gov't ... some will argue that size is directly related to efficiency ... maybe but it really depends on what role gov't is supposed to play to determining what is an optimal size ...
right, you are right. So why not kill two birds with one stone. Smaller government intervention in the markets, less of a chance for government to be manipulated by the players...
because the problem isn't gov't ... the problem is who controls gov't ... we already have enough proof that left to its own devices corporations will exploit and choose profit above everything else ... societal impacts are of little concern ... there has to be a level playing field - you require rules and enforcement and that is what gov't is for ... amongst other things ...
yep, a free market place doesn't mean no government protection for individuals. It isn't anarchy... It isn't a market free from responsibility, or free to violate the rights of the people acting within...The only rights the government should be worried about protecting are the people's and when you begin to have corporate influence on wide reaching policies you begin to realize that there needs to be a fundamental change in the perceived role of government. Take away the ability to have wide reaching policies you begin to take away the incentives for businesses to try to corrupt officials...
But I guess we just look at it differently.
I think the corporate influence in government is a symptom of its size and scope...you seem think that corporate influence would exist even if we took away the incentive to meddle in the first place.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
it doesn't make sense because you are not understanding what i'm saying ...
who is making the gov't big!?? ... why does it suck at running pretty much every program? ... sometimes what seems to be a failure is actually intended ...
One could argue - government maximizes public labor. They certainly don't maximize profit. So, they have no incentive system to be great at running programs, other than to keep their jobs. It's not a like a for-profit business, where if they suck, they go out of business. For the most part, elected officials don't have to worry about losing their jobs for years. A large amount of public employees, don't even have to worry about elections, and their jobs are protected by unions (even if they suck at their job). Moreover, if the elected officials just all are terrible (via unknown collusion) and try to help out their home state here or there and toss their constituents a bone, through backdoor deals, they tend to get re-elected because we're becoming a welfare society. There's just no incentive structure... because... it's government.
and really the issue isn't the size of gov't ... it is the efficiency of gov't ... some will argue that size is directly related to efficiency ... maybe but it really depends on what role gov't is supposed to play to determining what is an optimal size ...
Government by definition is not "efficient". They have no incentive or reason to be "efficient".
So, trying to pretend like we can make it efficient is silly. Particularly, when you argue that increasing the layers of bureaucracy (which happens with bigger government) will help... it's crazy. Therefore, why not put constraints on the inefficient behemoth?
Big government is the problem. It breeds corruption.
I think the corporate influence in government is a symptom of its size and scope...you seem think that corporate influence would exist even if we took away the incentive to meddle in the first place.
i believe corporate influence increased the size and scope of gov't ... and that you can have big gov't without corporate influence ...
One could argue - government maximizes public labor. They certainly don't maximize profit. So, they have no incentive system to be great at running programs, other than to keep their jobs. It's not a like a for-profit business, where if they suck, they go out of business. For the most part, elected officials don't have to worry about losing their jobs for years. A large amount of public employees, don't even have to worry about elections, and their jobs are protected by unions (even if they suck at their job). Moreover, if the elected officials just all are terrible (via unknown collusion) and try to help out their home state here or there and toss their constituents a bone, through backdoor deals, they tend to get re-elected because we're becoming a welfare society. There's just no incentive structure... because... it's government.
Government by definition is not "efficient". They have no incentive or reason to be "efficient".
So, trying to pretend like we can make it efficient is silly. Particularly, when you argue that increasing the layers of bureaucracy (which happens with bigger government) will help... it's crazy. Therefore, why not put constraints on the inefficient behemoth?
Big government is the problem. It breeds corruption.
i'm obviously not surprised you subscribe to those theories ... nor should you be surprised that i disagree with it ...
we obviously both agree that the US gov't is inefficient ... whereas you want to believe it is inherent, i believe that its inefficiencies are manipulated by the interests that profits from that inefficiency ... generally speaking ...
One could argue - government maximizes public labor. They certainly don't maximize profit. So, they have no incentive system to be great at running programs, other than to keep their jobs. It's not a like a for-profit business, where if they suck, they go out of business. For the most part, elected officials don't have to worry about losing their jobs for years. A large amount of public employees, don't even have to worry about elections, and their jobs are protected by unions (even if they suck at their job). Moreover, if the elected officials just all are terrible (via unknown collusion) and try to help out their home state here or there and toss their constituents a bone, through backdoor deals, they tend to get re-elected because we're becoming a welfare society. There's just no incentive structure... because... it's government.
Government by definition is not "efficient". They have no incentive or reason to be "efficient".
So, trying to pretend like we can make it efficient is silly. Particularly, when you argue that increasing the layers of bureaucracy (which happens with bigger government) will help... it's crazy. Therefore, why not put constraints on the inefficient behemoth?
Big government is the problem. It breeds corruption.
i'm obviously not surprised you subscribe to those theories ... nor should you be surprised that i disagree with it ...
we obviously both agree that the US gov't is inefficient ... whereas you want to believe it is inherent, i believe that its inefficiencies are manipulated by the interests that profits from that inefficiency ... generally speaking ...
See, I also believe government becomes even more "inefficient" then it would otherwise be when special interests come into play. But, I believe the special interest framework is exponential expanded depending on the size of government. My basic premise is that government is inefficient in general, but does public good, so it's existence is necessary. The goal is to obtain the public good from government, and constrain it's growth. Otherwise, as government size grows, inefficiency grows in a exponential manner with it. As govt gains more power to regulate/control/expand, corporations (and business in general) tend to try to influence government (because they are seeking to max profit, and they know that they can gain an upper hand by influencing government). What to do? Well, I say - take away the over-reach capabilities of government and you limit corporate influence. So, in other words, I agree that inefficiencies are manipulated by corporations, but I argue it's the size and overreach of government which makes those manipulations possible to begin with.
I do have a question: since you remain convinced government can be big and efficient, can you provide one example of extreme government "efficiency"... ever...
See, I also believe government becomes even more "inefficient" then it would otherwise be when special interests come into play. But, I believe the special interest framework is exponential expanded depending on the size of government. My basic premise is that government is inefficient in general, but does public good, so it's existence is necessary. The goal is to obtain the public good from government, and constrain it's growth. Otherwise, as government size grows, inefficiency grows in a exponential manner with it. As they gain more power to regulate, corporations (and business in general) tend to try to influence government (because they are seeking to max profit, and they know that they can gain an upper hand by influencing government). What to do? Well, I say - take away the over-reach capabilities of government and you limit corporate influence. So, in other words, I agree that inefficiencies are manipulated by corporations, but I argue it's the size and overreach of government which makes those manipulations possible to begin with.
I do have a question: since you remain convinced government can be big and efficient, can you provide one example of extreme government "efficiency"... ever...
i believe that inefficiency is not directly related to size ... take a corporation ... why do some companies have large number of employees and some have a few ... each corporation determines the number of employees to maximize efficiency ... it really comes down to what role gov't plays ... that will determine its size ...
i also believe that corporate influence is gov't is mainly a US problem ... although that corporate influence exists in many other countries ... it's prevalence and reach is staggering in the US ...
and as it relates to the size and overreach of gov't ... i have said that i theorize that this size and overreach is caused by corporations ... so in essence gov't = corporations ... you want to limit the size and reach of gov'ts you need to limit the influence of corporations ...
and as for an example ... i take health care ... although not perfect anywhere ... the US pays the most per capita on health care despite not having a universal health care program ... places with universal health care program pays significantly less ...
I think the corporate influence in government is a symptom of its size and scope...you seem think that corporate influence would exist even if we took away the incentive to meddle in the first place.
i believe corporate influence increased the size and scope of gov't ... and that you can have big gov't without corporate influence ...
It's a bit "chicken-or-the-egg" now, since as a society (and world) we're so far down this pseudo-free market path now, but I don't think there's much debate that, at the nascence of the influence, gov't involvement on a given market/industry begets corporate influence. It all goes back to incentive, as others have already mentioned. If the gov't isn't involved in a given market (and is explicitly restricted from being so), there's nothing for the corporation to gain from PAC contributions and the like. However, once the govt's involvement in the market is established, then yes I agree that lobbies and corporate PACs, etc, probably contribute to the size/scope of gov't as much as the reverse.
It's a bit "chicken-or-the-egg" now, since as a society (and world) we're so far down this pseudo-free market path now, but I don't think there's much debate that, at the nascence of the influence, gov't involvement on a given market/industry begets corporate influence. It all goes back to incentive, as others have already mentioned. If the gov't isn't involved in a given market (and is explicitly restricted from being so), there's nothing for the corporation to gain from PAC contributions and the like. However, once the govt's involvement in the market is established, then yes I agree that lobbies and corporate PACs, etc, probably contribute to the size/scope of gov't as much as the reverse.
but my point is that this involvement of gov't is because of corporations ... take war for example ... the US would not be spending billions of dollars on wars overseas if it did not go into war ... who decided to go to war? ... definitely not the people ... corporations pushed for war and they manipulated a scenario to get the country to go into war ... thus profiting ...
i believe that inefficiency is not directly related to size ... take a corporation ... why do some companies have large number of employees and some have a few ... each corporation determines the number of employees to maximize efficiency ... it really comes down to what role gov't plays ... that will determine its size ...
You can't compare corporations or businesses to government because they're optimizing something entirely different (profit vs. not-profit). Corporations have to be cost-efficient, otherwise they go out of business (outside of bailouts ). Governments, on the other hand, don't really have the incentive to be cost-efficient. They aren't maximizing profit and their very existence is not based on that optimization problem.
i also believe that corporate influence is gov't is mainly a US problem ... although that corporate influence exists in many other countries ... it's prevalence and reach is staggering in the US ...
I disagree here. The difference is you may "see it" more clearly in the US because the US has more/larger corporations. Yet, I continue to argue it's not the size of the corporation, rather than the tentacles of government over-reach that really is the problem, and hence why it's seen or is a problem at all. So, if you have more corporations in country A, and the government moves, more and more towards government intrusion in the market, it's only logical that you'd see special interests (or corporations linking with government) rise as a result. The special interest rising is not a function of large amount of corporations or businesses, it's a result of more government over-reach. If they stay out of the market, there's no reason for the corporations to try to influence them. The visibility, however, I think could be due to large amounts of corporations fighting for that leg up that the government can provide, in this new market with government intervention. That's probably what you're "seeing".
and as it relates to the size and overreach of gov't ... i have said that i theorize that this size and overreach is caused by corporations ... so in essence gov't = corporations ... you want to limit the size and reach of gov'ts you need to limit the influence of corporations ...
Business doesn't want price-controls. Business doen't want excessive regulation. Business doesn't want government interference. Why? Because they want higher profits. These regulations and over-reaches constrain profits.
Although forced lower prices (for example ) sound good from the consumer side, from the producer side they are not (this trickles back to consumers through wages from work). The forced lower prices hit businesses bottom line.... and that's because of the government intervention. So, the corporations try to find loopholes. Meanwhile, the government politicians know the government intervention is affecting the market, and they want their particular constituents to keep jobs, so they offer side deals. Sure, once these policies are enacted business try to gain the upper-hand on their competition, but so do politicians. They know this is occurring in their home state, so they try to get around it. The problem is the intervention, not the corporations size.
If you want to argue small government can intervene as much as big government, I just disagree.
and as for an example ... i take health care ... although not perfect anywhere ... the US pays the most per capita on health care despite not having a universal health care program ... places with universal health care program pays significantly less ...
So, you're arguing that gov't run healthcare is an example of "extreme efficiency"?
Just to clarify, price controls (of any sort) or any manipulation by government of the supply and demand relationship for a good or service are the complete opposite of "efficiency". On the surface, price declines may seem "efficient", but that's not what efficiency is.. you also need to account for quantity. Anyway, I asked for "one" example of "extreme efficiency" by government. This one doesn't cut it, especially for those who get rationed out of care in these "more efficient " systems.
Got a real example of government "extreme efficiency"?
well ... it seems we are going circular so - i'll just say i disagree for aforementioned reasons ...
as for the example ... it's your choice not to accept that example ... i would basically say any gov't run program can be run efficiently ... let's use a case study of food safety ...
right now - gov't bodies set guidelines and safety standards for production and quality ... there are inspectors that do checks to ensure that producers meet these guidelines ... how would you rather have it?
right now - gov't bodies set guidelines and safety standards for production and quality ... there are inspectors that do checks to ensure that producers meet these guidelines ... how would you rather have it?
First, let's remind ourselves, the question was regarding "efficiency", in fact "extreme efficiency". Ok... so now, that that is underscored, do I think the FDA is "efficient"? No. I don't. Do I think it's extremely efficient? I know with certainty its not. There are problems with the FDA. The goal of safety may be good or desired, but is their process efficient? No.
The question on how I would have it is really irrelevant to whether the example of a govt organization you provided are "efficient" or not. They aren't. Government is rarely if ever efficient. There's a role for government, but we need to keep in mind that they aren't ever really "efficient".
As for my take, I see problems with the FDA getting things wrong or at times engaging in corrupt behavior. The goal of food safety is nobel, but I see no reason it couldn't be a bit more privatized. How exactly is the FDA held accountable if they fuck up? They aren't. Look at the Post Office, I think most would agree that their services improved when Fed Ex, etc started coming on board and competing. So, personally, I don't see why that couldn't happen in this scenario either. In the long run, my personal opinion is the private market (like the post office example) will do it better because they are forced to be efficient, motivated by profit and aware of the fact that customers can leave if their products/services suck.
i'm not talking about the FDA ... i've already concluded that these agencies primarily serve the corporations and that using them as an example would not be fair ... just because the FDA is run the way the FDA is run doesn't mean it can't be run differently ...
...
Question: Does your opinion change, if we are talking about China?
...
Meaning, should those same rule apply regarding China and the potential pollution that can be created when they become a fully operational industrial society?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Not looking to get in on the debate at all, am a greeny at heart for sure but you guys are way way way more educated than me on the subject...but thought you may like to read a great poem by an australian named Bruce Dawe
Search and Destroy
Fear no more the heat o the sun
its rays are filtered, every one
the fumes from car exhausts and fires
from dumps and furnaces aspires
to poison heaven where the bird
sings on a diminished third
or totters from the well sprayed tree
replete with years and DDT
Now nature grinds her basic gears
the big end knocks, the junkyard nears
now fish float belly up downstream caught
by chemicals too vague to be fought
the forests sigh and fall, the hills
blink baldly as the new wind chills
the grasslands waver and are gone
the concrete NOTHING blunders on
black gold fountains to the sky
the sands are mined, the sea coasts die
the land runs ruin to our pride
Lord, give us, for our patricide
two hundred more years like the last
and what shall then withstand the blast?
BRUCE DAWE
Sorry inlet but that video sickened me buddy...it seems like common sense to me that if you destroy, pollute, treat something like crap you are going to experience serious negative consequences...hey that must be why I am single???
"God created surfing and Pearl Jam so that the truely gifted, talented and most intelligent people wouldnt rule the world"...adapted from my bumper sticker
...
Question: Does your opinion change, if we are talking about China?
...
Meaning, should those same rule apply regarding China and the potential pollution that can be created when they become a fully operational industrial society?
Glad you asked this question because it underscores an incredibly common lack of understanding on a couple topics.
1) Some think the free-market is a zero-sum game. Those who believe that are wrong - it can be mutually beneficial to all. In other words, as China grows and moves more and more to free-markets, that can actually help the global economy (and the US). We benefit from trade with them and they do with trade from us. People tend to fall into the "they're stealing our jobs" nonsense because they don't understand that there's two sides to the economy: producers and consumers. If they can do something better, or have a comparative advantage in an area, they will gain jobs in those areas... which will be better for consumers across the board. Ironically, producers can be consumers, so that could even mean more domestic jobs as a direct consequence. But, this is getting too far off the original subject. Bottom line - free-trade is not a zero-sum game.
2) On to your other point - no one (to my knowledge) is FOR pollution. I can't stand when people act as though those who don't necessarily buy into "global warming" or "global climate change" are FOR pollution. They are almost always completely wrong. First, they are not the same thing. Some are skeptical on global warming all together. Some are skeptical on pollution causing global warming. Neither of the forementioned says pollution is good. Anyway, free-markets push property rights to deal with pollution. If someone is polluting your land, your home, your business you are entitled to enforce your property rights. They key obviously would be able to undoubtedly prove it. Physical pollution is easier here. Second, it should be reminded that governments can be huge polluters. Why that goes unnoticed in your China example, considering they are a socialist country, is beyond me. Half the problem in that country could be absent property rights or government generated pollution... did you ever think about that?
3) So, to answer your question with the two notes above - we want China to move towards free-markets. We want their economy to grow in response. If China truly does move to a free-market system, they will move towards the establishment of true property rights. If they truly do move towards an establishment of true property rights, pollution will be constrained - and growth will be optimized.
Sorry inlet but that video sickened me buddy...it seems like common sense to me that if you destroy, pollute, treat something like crap you are going to experience serious negative consequences...hey that must be why I am single???
What sickens me is the nativity of some. For example, you don't know me. I don't go around polluting. In fact, I love the ocean and clean up shit when I see it lying on the beach. Yet, I am not sold on "man-made global warming", and further believe that any "proof" of climate change may be "proof" of a natural occurrence. Further, I think there's major incentives for those who support a big government (socialist or even more leftist) agenda to support global warming because it allows the public tentacles "in" to many many many more markets - to regulate, to control, to manipulate. That...
That...
Right there, that.... is what the video is about. It's not saying "Go Pollute!"... it's saying, WAKE UP SHEEP. Recognize that there's a reason certain people - who are ANTI-FREE MARKET - may want to USE the environmental agenda to broaden their control over markets.... to move towards SOCIALISM or PLANNED ECONOMIES. Change if I want America to Fail to .... If I want the Free-market to fail or if I want a planned Economy, then maybe you'd see what I mean. The video was good at saying "why" you shouldn't just outwardly trust the global warming movement.
Comments
it doesn't make sense because you are not understanding what i'm saying ...
who is making the gov't big!?? ... why does it suck at running pretty much every program? ... sometimes what seems to be a failure is actually intended ...
and really the issue isn't the size of gov't ... it is the efficiency of gov't ... some will argue that size is directly related to efficiency ... maybe but it really depends on what role gov't is supposed to play to determining what is an optimal size ...
yep, a free market place doesn't mean no government protection for individuals. It isn't anarchy... It isn't a market free from responsibility, or free to violate the rights of the people acting within...The only rights the government should be worried about protecting are the people's and when you begin to have corporate influence on wide reaching policies you begin to realize that there needs to be a fundamental change in the perceived role of government. Take away the ability to have wide reaching policies you begin to take away the incentives for businesses to try to corrupt officials...
But I guess we just look at it differently.
I think the corporate influence in government is a symptom of its size and scope...you seem think that corporate influence would exist even if we took away the incentive to meddle in the first place.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
One could argue - government maximizes public labor. They certainly don't maximize profit. So, they have no incentive system to be great at running programs, other than to keep their jobs. It's not a like a for-profit business, where if they suck, they go out of business. For the most part, elected officials don't have to worry about losing their jobs for years. A large amount of public employees, don't even have to worry about elections, and their jobs are protected by unions (even if they suck at their job). Moreover, if the elected officials just all are terrible (via unknown collusion) and try to help out their home state here or there and toss their constituents a bone, through backdoor deals, they tend to get re-elected because we're becoming a welfare society. There's just no incentive structure... because... it's government.
Government by definition is not "efficient". They have no incentive or reason to be "efficient".
So, trying to pretend like we can make it efficient is silly. Particularly, when you argue that increasing the layers of bureaucracy (which happens with bigger government) will help... it's crazy. Therefore, why not put constraints on the inefficient behemoth?
Big government is the problem. It breeds corruption.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
i believe corporate influence increased the size and scope of gov't ... and that you can have big gov't without corporate influence ...
i'm obviously not surprised you subscribe to those theories ... nor should you be surprised that i disagree with it ...
we obviously both agree that the US gov't is inefficient ... whereas you want to believe it is inherent, i believe that its inefficiencies are manipulated by the interests that profits from that inefficiency ... generally speaking ...
See, I also believe government becomes even more "inefficient" then it would otherwise be when special interests come into play. But, I believe the special interest framework is exponential expanded depending on the size of government. My basic premise is that government is inefficient in general, but does public good, so it's existence is necessary. The goal is to obtain the public good from government, and constrain it's growth. Otherwise, as government size grows, inefficiency grows in a exponential manner with it. As govt gains more power to regulate/control/expand, corporations (and business in general) tend to try to influence government (because they are seeking to max profit, and they know that they can gain an upper hand by influencing government). What to do? Well, I say - take away the over-reach capabilities of government and you limit corporate influence. So, in other words, I agree that inefficiencies are manipulated by corporations, but I argue it's the size and overreach of government which makes those manipulations possible to begin with.
I do have a question: since you remain convinced government can be big and efficient, can you provide one example of extreme government "efficiency"... ever...
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
i believe that inefficiency is not directly related to size ... take a corporation ... why do some companies have large number of employees and some have a few ... each corporation determines the number of employees to maximize efficiency ... it really comes down to what role gov't plays ... that will determine its size ...
i also believe that corporate influence is gov't is mainly a US problem ... although that corporate influence exists in many other countries ... it's prevalence and reach is staggering in the US ...
and as it relates to the size and overreach of gov't ... i have said that i theorize that this size and overreach is caused by corporations ... so in essence gov't = corporations ... you want to limit the size and reach of gov'ts you need to limit the influence of corporations ...
and as for an example ... i take health care ... although not perfect anywhere ... the US pays the most per capita on health care despite not having a universal health care program ... places with universal health care program pays significantly less ...
but my point is that this involvement of gov't is because of corporations ... take war for example ... the US would not be spending billions of dollars on wars overseas if it did not go into war ... who decided to go to war? ... definitely not the people ... corporations pushed for war and they manipulated a scenario to get the country to go into war ... thus profiting ...
You can't compare corporations or businesses to government because they're optimizing something entirely different (profit vs. not-profit). Corporations have to be cost-efficient, otherwise they go out of business (outside of bailouts
I disagree here. The difference is you may "see it" more clearly in the US because the US has more/larger corporations. Yet, I continue to argue it's not the size of the corporation, rather than the tentacles of government over-reach that really is the problem, and hence why it's seen or is a problem at all. So, if you have more corporations in country A, and the government moves, more and more towards government intrusion in the market, it's only logical that you'd see special interests (or corporations linking with government) rise as a result. The special interest rising is not a function of large amount of corporations or businesses, it's a result of more government over-reach. If they stay out of the market, there's no reason for the corporations to try to influence them. The visibility, however, I think could be due to large amounts of corporations fighting for that leg up that the government can provide, in this new market with government intervention. That's probably what you're "seeing".
Business doesn't want price-controls. Business doen't want excessive regulation. Business doesn't want government interference. Why? Because they want higher profits. These regulations and over-reaches constrain profits.
Although forced lower prices (for example ) sound good from the consumer side, from the producer side they are not (this trickles back to consumers through wages from work). The forced lower prices hit businesses bottom line.... and that's because of the government intervention. So, the corporations try to find loopholes. Meanwhile, the government politicians know the government intervention is affecting the market, and they want their particular constituents to keep jobs, so they offer side deals. Sure, once these policies are enacted business try to gain the upper-hand on their competition, but so do politicians. They know this is occurring in their home state, so they try to get around it. The problem is the intervention, not the corporations size.
If you want to argue small government can intervene as much as big government, I just disagree.
So, you're arguing that gov't run healthcare is an example of "extreme efficiency"?
Just to clarify, price controls (of any sort) or any manipulation by government of the supply and demand relationship for a good or service are the complete opposite of "efficiency". On the surface, price declines may seem "efficient", but that's not what efficiency is.. you also need to account for quantity. Anyway, I asked for "one" example of "extreme efficiency" by government. This one doesn't cut it, especially for those who get rationed out of care in these "more efficient
Got a real example of government "extreme efficiency"?
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
as for the example ... it's your choice not to accept that example ... i would basically say any gov't run program can be run efficiently ... let's use a case study of food safety ...
right now - gov't bodies set guidelines and safety standards for production and quality ... there are inspectors that do checks to ensure that producers meet these guidelines ... how would you rather have it?
Fair enough.
I clearly disagree, they don't have the incentives on their side.
First, let's remind ourselves, the question was regarding "efficiency", in fact "extreme efficiency". Ok... so now, that that is underscored, do I think the FDA is "efficient"? No. I don't. Do I think it's extremely efficient? I know with certainty its not. There are problems with the FDA. The goal of safety may be good or desired, but is their process efficient? No.
The question on how I would have it is really irrelevant to whether the example of a govt organization you provided are "efficient" or not. They aren't. Government is rarely if ever efficient. There's a role for government, but we need to keep in mind that they aren't ever really "efficient".
As for my take, I see problems with the FDA getting things wrong or at times engaging in corrupt behavior. The goal of food safety is nobel, but I see no reason it couldn't be a bit more privatized. How exactly is the FDA held accountable if they fuck up? They aren't. Look at the Post Office, I think most would agree that their services improved when Fed Ex, etc started coming on board and competing. So, personally, I don't see why that couldn't happen in this scenario either. In the long run, my personal opinion is the private market (like the post office example) will do it better because they are forced to be efficient, motivated by profit and aware of the fact that customers can leave if their products/services suck.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Question: Does your opinion change, if we are talking about China?
...
Meaning, should those same rule apply regarding China and the potential pollution that can be created when they become a fully operational industrial society?
Hail, Hail!!!
Search and Destroy
Fear no more the heat o the sun
its rays are filtered, every one
the fumes from car exhausts and fires
from dumps and furnaces aspires
to poison heaven where the bird
sings on a diminished third
or totters from the well sprayed tree
replete with years and DDT
Now nature grinds her basic gears
the big end knocks, the junkyard nears
now fish float belly up downstream caught
by chemicals too vague to be fought
the forests sigh and fall, the hills
blink baldly as the new wind chills
the grasslands waver and are gone
the concrete NOTHING blunders on
black gold fountains to the sky
the sands are mined, the sea coasts die
the land runs ruin to our pride
Lord, give us, for our patricide
two hundred more years like the last
and what shall then withstand the blast?
BRUCE DAWE
Sorry inlet but that video sickened me buddy...it seems like common sense to me that if you destroy, pollute, treat something like crap you are going to experience serious negative consequences...hey that must be why I am single???
Glad you asked this question because it underscores an incredibly common lack of understanding on a couple topics.
1) Some think the free-market is a zero-sum game. Those who believe that are wrong - it can be mutually beneficial to all. In other words, as China grows and moves more and more to free-markets, that can actually help the global economy (and the US). We benefit from trade with them and they do with trade from us. People tend to fall into the "they're stealing our jobs" nonsense because they don't understand that there's two sides to the economy: producers and consumers. If they can do something better, or have a comparative advantage in an area, they will gain jobs in those areas... which will be better for consumers across the board. Ironically, producers can be consumers, so that could even mean more domestic jobs as a direct consequence. But, this is getting too far off the original subject. Bottom line - free-trade is not a zero-sum game.
2) On to your other point - no one (to my knowledge) is FOR pollution. I can't stand when people act as though those who don't necessarily buy into "global warming" or "global climate change" are FOR pollution. They are almost always completely wrong. First, they are not the same thing. Some are skeptical on global warming all together. Some are skeptical on pollution causing global warming. Neither of the forementioned says pollution is good. Anyway, free-markets push property rights to deal with pollution. If someone is polluting your land, your home, your business you are entitled to enforce your property rights. They key obviously would be able to undoubtedly prove it. Physical pollution is easier here. Second, it should be reminded that governments can be huge polluters. Why that goes unnoticed in your China example, considering they are a socialist country, is beyond me. Half the problem in that country could be absent property rights or government generated pollution... did you ever think about that?
3) So, to answer your question with the two notes above - we want China to move towards free-markets. We want their economy to grow in response. If China truly does move to a free-market system, they will move towards the establishment of true property rights. If they truly do move towards an establishment of true property rights, pollution will be constrained - and growth will be optimized.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
What sickens me is the nativity of some. For example, you don't know me. I don't go around polluting. In fact, I love the ocean and clean up shit when I see it lying on the beach. Yet, I am not sold on "man-made global warming", and further believe that any "proof" of climate change may be "proof" of a natural occurrence. Further, I think there's major incentives for those who support a big government (socialist or even more leftist) agenda to support global warming because it allows the public tentacles "in" to many many many more markets - to regulate, to control, to manipulate. That...
That...
Right there, that.... is what the video is about. It's not saying "Go Pollute!"... it's saying, WAKE UP SHEEP. Recognize that there's a reason certain people - who are ANTI-FREE MARKET - may want to USE the environmental agenda to broaden their control over markets.... to move towards SOCIALISM or PLANNED ECONOMIES. Change if I want America to Fail to .... If I want the Free-market to fail or if I want a planned Economy, then maybe you'd see what I mean. The video was good at saying "why" you shouldn't just outwardly trust the global warming movement.
That's what the video is about.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="