Bar Stool Economics

13»

Comments

  • markin ball
    markin ball Posts: 1,076
    HeidiJam wrote:
    Pure socialism does not work.
    1.) Socialistic principles are mutually exclusive with free market principles, namely
    - Competition, which is the only general, feasible mechanism for increasing quality and reducing real prices over the long term.
    - Profit-loss mechanism, which is the only effective mechanism, on the whole, for distributing finite capital and savings in a manner that leads towards consumer satisfaction
    - Most individual motivation, which is the backbone of entrepreneurship, and thus progress of society.
    2.) Inevitably leads to tragedy of the commons
    3.) In todays day and age, inevitably leads to expansion of central government, authoritarianism, and increasing waste due to increasing layers of bureacracy.
    4.) The goal of "helping people who really need it" is far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far better met by a decentralized, bottom up society based on individual liberty + free markets.
    Reasons for this include:
    - Far less waste inherent in large bureaucracy
    - Far less waste that is a typical secondary consequence of government bureaucratic inefficiency.
    - bottom-up = far easier for people-employee (government) accountability
    - bottom-up = resources are far better allocated, i.e a local organization in my town knows a hell of a lot better what my town needs than some bureaucrat in DC

    - People as a whole are generous, and its ironic that this is used in an argument for government programs, i.e "capitalism is cruel (no it isnt -- it is a-emotional), and without government programs, people wouldnt get any help whatsoever).

    The obvious confounded is that in any sort of democratic-type system, these government programs would not be voted in, unless a majority of the votees believed in helping people in some way. Thus making the original, and very common, proposition here meaningless.

    - The "golden age of capitalism", which most poeple ignorantly point to as its "failure", was nothing of the sort -- its was also one of the most generous times -- the richest men were some of the biggest philanthropists.

    Furthermore, the best service you can do to society is not to just donate your money -- it is to be an entrepreneur, and make millions by making a common product better & cheaper.

    Does pure capitalism work? And if so, where has it been practiced successfully? Careful, now. This is a trap?
    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."

    "With our thoughts we make the world"
  • satansbed
    satansbed Posts: 2,139
    HeidiJam wrote:
    Pure socialism does not work.
    1.) Socialistic principles are mutually exclusive with free market principles, namely
    - Competition, which is the only general, feasible mechanism for increasing quality and reducing real prices over the long term.
    - Profit-loss mechanism, which is the only effective mechanism, on the whole, for distributing finite capital and savings in a manner that leads towards consumer satisfaction
    - Most individual motivation, which is the backbone of entrepreneurship, and thus progress of society.

    okay but sometimes competition isn't a good thing, especially with regards to a wage race to the bottom, because then money is less at the bottom than at the top, leaving rich people with more and poor people with less so to speak, which is good in some regards its bad in other regards
    2.) Inevitably leads to tragedy of the commons
    this point i have most contention with because if there was no regulation or government there would be much more likely for there to be a tragedy of the commons, for example with capitalism and the motive being poor profit there is no mechanism for stopping people to use all the valuable resources because they are only looking forward to their own profit, and will use their all the resources to make that profit, while with socialism there is a centralized government there to regulate how much of the resources people can use correctly
    3.) In todays day and age, inevitably leads to expansion of central government, authoritarianism, and increasing waste due to increasing layers of bureacracy.
    i pretty much agree with this but this can happen in capitalism too
    no im neither capitalist nor socialist

    i feel the government has a responsibility to provide healthcare, education, and defense, and infrastructure, now what i don't understand is why people are so against the government providing healthcare and education as long as people have an option to get private healthcare and education if they can afford it
  • Blockhead
    Blockhead Posts: 1,538
    markin ball wrote:
    Does pure capitalism work? And if so, where has it been practiced successfully? Careful, now. This is a trap?
    Ideally - Probably not
    In Reality - Probably
  • Blockhead
    Blockhead Posts: 1,538
    satansbed wrote:
    no im neither capitalist nor socialist

    i feel the government has a responsibility to provide healthcare, education, and defense, and infrastructure, now what i don't understand is why people are so against the government providing healthcare and education as long as people have an option to get private healthcare and education if they can afford it
    Public education I see as an investment up to a certin point. It's wise to do with our tax dollars, because it leads to a more productive country. You can't say the same for say socialized health care
  • markin ball
    markin ball Posts: 1,076
    HeidiJam wrote:
    markin ball wrote:
    Does pure capitalism work? And if so, where has it been practiced successfully? Careful, now. This is a trap?
    Ideally - Probably not
    In Reality - Probably

    No system can be tested in a vacuum so I don't think its all that productive to get too wrapped up in the theory, or "testing" of these systems anyway. Societies and economies are what they are and they are what we allow them to be. Certainly there are free market and socialistic principles that have considerable merit. As long as there is society and organization, there will be an amount of socialism.
    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."

    "With our thoughts we make the world"
  • markin ball
    markin ball Posts: 1,076
    HeidiJam wrote:
    satansbed wrote:
    no im neither capitalist nor socialist

    i feel the government has a responsibility to provide healthcare, education, and defense, and infrastructure, now what i don't understand is why people are so against the government providing healthcare and education as long as people have an option to get private healthcare and education if they can afford it
    Public education I see as an investment up to a certin point. It's wise to do with our tax dollars, because it leads to a more productive country. You can't say the same for say socialized health care

    I'm not sure I agree with the "production" statement but should health care be subservient to production or profit? Profit should not be the primary motivator in all systems, I think.
    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."

    "With our thoughts we make the world"
  • haffajappa
    haffajappa British Columbia Posts: 5,955
    markin ball wrote:
    HeidiJam wrote:
    satansbed wrote:
    no im neither capitalist nor socialist

    i feel the government has a responsibility to provide healthcare, education, and defense, and infrastructure, now what i don't understand is why people are so against the government providing healthcare and education as long as people have an option to get private healthcare and education if they can afford it
    Public education I see as an investment up to a certin point. It's wise to do with our tax dollars, because it leads to a more productive country. You can't say the same for say socialized health care

    I'm not sure I agree with the "production" statement but should health care be subservient to production or profit? Profit should not be the primary motivator in all systems, I think.
    Wait, you're argument (heidijam) is that governments SHOULDN'T put money into healthcare because it's not a good investment? Education is good for future productivity, but people having access to affordable healthcare isn't... Since when are people's lives based on their potential to make the country rich?
    live pearl jam is best pearl jam
  • OutOfBreath
    OutOfBreath Posts: 1,804
    HeidiJam wrote:
    Public education I see as an investment up to a certin point. It's wise to do with our tax dollars, because it leads to a more productive country. You can't say the same for say socialized health care

    Doesn't ensuring a healthy workforce have an effect on productivity? I'd say a healthy worker is more productive than a half-sick/sick one. And if access is ensured (and managed properly), they're more likely to get a check-up when they should, instead of postponing it until there's no other way and the problem has really taken root. Manage it through taxes, and it's not something the companies need to worry about either, since they can't cut the corners they'd might.

    (The US system does provide some of this, but at a tremendous cost without even covering everyone. In my view, because you try your hardest to avoid a comprehensive public system, and continue to give it to the private sector with several band-aids and supports from the public to avoid the worst market failures and unwanted consequences. )

    Peace
    Dan
    "YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death

    "Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
  • Blockhead
    Blockhead Posts: 1,538
    OutOfBreath wrote:
    Doesn't ensuring a healthy workforce have an effect on productivity? I'd say a healthy worker is more productive than a half-sick/sick one. And if access is ensured (and managed properly), they're more likely to get a check-up when they should, instead of postponing it until there's no other way and the problem has really taken root. Manage it through taxes, and it's not something the companies need to worry about either, since they can't cut the corners they'd might.

    (The US system does provide some of this, but at a tremendous cost without even covering everyone. In my view, because you try your hardest to avoid a comprehensive public system, and continue to give it to the private sector with several band-aids and supports from the public to avoid the worst market failures and unwanted consequences. )

    Peace
    Dan
    Healthcare is a different aniaml. Public education cirriculum is set by the Gov. Healthcare is not so everybody is free to make choices on what they eat /drink and put in the bodies at everybody's expense. You also can't ensure health, there are way to many factors and risks. How should people not be responsible for their own health?
  • haffajappa
    haffajappa British Columbia Posts: 5,955
    HeidiJam wrote:
    OutOfBreath wrote:
    Doesn't ensuring a healthy workforce have an effect on productivity? I'd say a healthy worker is more productive than a half-sick/sick one. And if access is ensured (and managed properly), they're more likely to get a check-up when they should, instead of postponing it until there's no other way and the problem has really taken root. Manage it through taxes, and it's not something the companies need to worry about either, since they can't cut the corners they'd might.

    (The US system does provide some of this, but at a tremendous cost without even covering everyone. In my view, because you try your hardest to avoid a comprehensive public system, and continue to give it to the private sector with several band-aids and supports from the public to avoid the worst market failures and unwanted consequences. )

    Peace
    Dan
    Healthcare is a different aniaml. Public education cirriculum is set by the Gov. Healthcare is not so everybody is free to make choices on what they eat /drink and put in the bodies at everybody's expense. You also can't ensure health, there are way to many factors and risks. How should people not be responsible for their own health?
    As in, we can't decide what we read? People need to be responsible for educating themselves too, I think we all know of someone who is a good example of needing to do so... :?
    live pearl jam is best pearl jam
  • keeponrockin
    keeponrockin Posts: 7,446
    HeidiJam wrote:
    OutOfBreath wrote:
    Doesn't ensuring a healthy workforce have an effect on productivity? I'd say a healthy worker is more productive than a half-sick/sick one. And if access is ensured (and managed properly), they're more likely to get a check-up when they should, instead of postponing it until there's no other way and the problem has really taken root. Manage it through taxes, and it's not something the companies need to worry about either, since they can't cut the corners they'd might.

    (The US system does provide some of this, but at a tremendous cost without even covering everyone. In my view, because you try your hardest to avoid a comprehensive public system, and continue to give it to the private sector with several band-aids and supports from the public to avoid the worst market failures and unwanted consequences. )

    Peace
    Dan
    Healthcare is a different aniaml. Public education cirriculum is set by the Gov. Healthcare is not so everybody is free to make choices on what they eat /drink and put in the bodies at everybody's expense. You also can't ensure health, there are way to many factors and risks. How should people not be responsible for their own health?
    It comes down to this. I don't want my next door neighbour to lose his house because he gets sick. I don't mind paying a little bit of extra taxes for that. Does it cover the fat ass who doesn't eat well? Yes, but I think the good outweighs the bad.
    Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
  • haffajappa
    haffajappa British Columbia Posts: 5,955
    keeponrockin wrote:
    HeidiJam wrote:
    OutOfBreath wrote:
    Doesn't ensuring a healthy workforce have an effect on productivity? I'd say a healthy worker is more productive than a half-sick/sick one. And if access is ensured (and managed properly), they're more likely to get a check-up when they should, instead of postponing it until there's no other way and the problem has really taken root. Manage it through taxes, and it's not something the companies need to worry about either, since they can't cut the corners they'd might.

    (The US system does provide some of this, but at a tremendous cost without even covering everyone. In my view, because you try your hardest to avoid a comprehensive public system, and continue to give it to the private sector with several band-aids and supports from the public to avoid the worst market failures and unwanted consequences. )

    Peace
    Dan
    Healthcare is a different aniaml. Public education cirriculum is set by the Gov. Healthcare is not so everybody is free to make choices on what they eat /drink and put in the bodies at everybody's expense. You also can't ensure health, there are way to many factors and risks. How should people not be responsible for their own health?
    It comes down to this. I don't want my next door neighbour to lose his house because he gets sick. I don't mind paying a little bit of extra taxes for that. Does it cover the fat ass who doesn't eat well? Yes, but I think the good outweighs the bad.
    Oh quit being such a SOCIALIST! ;)
    live pearl jam is best pearl jam
  • Blockhead
    Blockhead Posts: 1,538
    keeponrockin wrote:
    HeidiJam wrote:
    OutOfBreath wrote:
    Doesn't ensuring a healthy workforce have an effect on productivity? I'd say a healthy worker is more productive than a half-sick/sick one. And if access is ensured (and managed properly), they're more likely to get a check-up when they should, instead of postponing it until there's no other way and the problem has really taken root. Manage it through taxes, and it's not something the companies need to worry about either, since they can't cut the corners they'd might.

    (The US system does provide some of this, but at a tremendous cost without even covering everyone. In my view, because you try your hardest to avoid a comprehensive public system, and continue to give it to the private sector with several band-aids and supports from the public to avoid the worst market failures and unwanted consequences. )

    Peace
    Dan
    Healthcare is a different aniaml. Public education cirriculum is set by the Gov. Healthcare is not so everybody is free to make choices on what they eat /drink and put in the bodies at everybody's expense. You also can't ensure health, there are way to many factors and risks. How should people not be responsible for their own health?
    It comes down to this. I don't want my next door neighbour to lose his house because he gets sick. I don't mind paying a little bit of extra taxes for that. Does it cover the fat ass who doesn't eat well? Yes, but I think the good outweighs the bad.
    I wasn't aware that healthcare was not available? What should we be responsible for then?
  • Blockhead
    Blockhead Posts: 1,538
    haffajappa wrote:
    HeidiJam wrote:
    OutOfBreath wrote:
    Doesn't ensuring a healthy workforce have an effect on productivity? I'd say a healthy worker is more productive than a half-sick/sick one. And if access is ensured (and managed properly), they're more likely to get a check-up when they should, instead of postponing it until there's no other way and the problem has really taken root. Manage it through taxes, and it's not something the companies need to worry about either, since they can't cut the corners they'd might.

    (The US system does provide some of this, but at a tremendous cost without even covering everyone. In my view, because you try your hardest to avoid a comprehensive public system, and continue to give it to the private sector with several band-aids and supports from the public to avoid the worst market failures and unwanted consequences. )

    Peace
    Dan
    Healthcare is a different aniaml. Public education cirriculum is set by the Gov. Healthcare is not so everybody is free to make choices on what they eat /drink and put in the bodies at everybody's expense. You also can't ensure health, there are way to many factors and risks. How should people not be responsible for their own health?
    As in, we can't decide what we read? People need to be responsible for educating themselves too, I think we all know of someone who is a good example of needing to do so... :?
    I wasn't aware that reading was bad for you???
  • OutOfBreath
    OutOfBreath Posts: 1,804
    HeidiJam wrote:
    Healthcare is a different aniaml. Public education cirriculum is set by the Gov. Healthcare is not so everybody is free to make choices on what they eat /drink and put in the bodies at everybody's expense. You also can't ensure health, there are way to many factors and risks. How should people not be responsible for their own health?
    I dont see how it's fundamentally different from education, frankly. You could just as easily argue that people could and should pick up a damn book, and stay informed instead of relying on the gov to provide information and decide what people must learn. They can all make choices whether to read, listen or watch something they can learn from. They choose to watch x-factor instead? Sorry, bad call on their part...

    I see both education and healthcare as public goods that have best effect when they are available for all, not just those that can pay for it. And having it public does not mean people aren't responsible for themselves healthwise and skillwise. People should take care of their health, people should learn a profession. The inevitable freeloaders is not a sufficient reason to scrap what is socioeconomically profitable and useful.

    Peace
    Dan
    "YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death

    "Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
  • haffajappa
    haffajappa British Columbia Posts: 5,955
    HeidiJam wrote:
    I wasn't aware that reading was bad for you???
    I wasn't aware that healthcare was bad for you.... :shock:
    live pearl jam is best pearl jam

Categories