|
On March 01 2012 11:53 Focuspants wrote:
The statement "the private sector is ALWAYS going to provide a better service at a lower cost" is inherently false. Look at your medical and health care system. Its a failure for anyone that isnt rich. Certain things, such as healthcare, should be run by the government, with 2 goals in mind, first being providing good care for EVERYONE, and second operating cost effectively (NOT FOR PROFIT). I think government and the private sector are both needed, and both are better at different things. Its not a black and white issue.
Stopped reading at the bolded part. No one in their right mind thinks that our current health care system is market driven.
|
On March 01 2012 13:20 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 11:53 Focuspants wrote:
The statement "the private sector is ALWAYS going to provide a better service at a lower cost" is inherently false. Look at your medical and health care system. Its a failure for anyone that isnt rich. Certain things, such as healthcare, should be run by the government, with 2 goals in mind, first being providing good care for EVERYONE, and second operating cost effectively (NOT FOR PROFIT). I think government and the private sector are both needed, and both are better at different things. Its not a black and white issue.
Our healthcare system isn't run by a free market. Operating cost effectively, and "run by the government" are basically mutually exclusive, while being "for profit" and operating cost effectively aren't.
Being run by government doesn't automatically force the activity to be any more or less "efficient" than the private sector. The biggest difference between the two being that one has such a huge backing in the form of alternative income. This can cause poor investment decisions that would normally make a company less competitive or bankrupt it outright. Beyond that, however, there is nothing inherent in government that would make it any less ideal than private sector. Profit incentive is still there, as are many proper levels of compensation. Much of the groundbreaking research happens in public university labs anyways, and is only refined in private corporation labs.
|
You know, all this talk how economics makes me ask a simple question: What's the point?
I mean, what's the point of having such a powerful economy? It seems like all we're using it for is make our economy even more powerful. I don't think that's right.
Personally, I'm starting to think a serious issue with our economy is that we don't have any actual goals with it. We aren't actively saying what we want this strong economy to do. We just say we want jobs and money and such.
I think when the Romans and various civilizations used their economy to fund military expeditions, that made sense. Sure, military spending seems like kind of a waste of money, but come on, at least they were using their economy. They had a goal. In the Cold War we were fighting the Soviets and we actually used our economy to build giant useless weaponry. And it worked. I mean, all I hear about in these economic talks is how to solve the problems right now. This isn't how things are run. You have to think long term. What do we want?
So as a modern democracy we can't just be warlike. That's not really sensible. But let's be open about what we want our economy to do. Do we want to be able to have better medicine and healthcare? Maybe we could use our economy to actually fund our medical expenses. Maybe we go further into space. Maybe we develop artificial intelligence. Maybe we actively promote human rights across the globe. Maybe we push artistic endeavors to new heights and scopes.
What's the point of being a superpower when our standard of living isn't the highest? What is the bloody point of having such a powerful economy if we aren't going to care about how we use it?
|
On March 01 2012 14:01 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 13:20 Kiarip wrote:On March 01 2012 11:53 Focuspants wrote:
The statement "the private sector is ALWAYS going to provide a better service at a lower cost" is inherently false. Look at your medical and health care system. Its a failure for anyone that isnt rich. Certain things, such as healthcare, should be run by the government, with 2 goals in mind, first being providing good care for EVERYONE, and second operating cost effectively (NOT FOR PROFIT). I think government and the private sector are both needed, and both are better at different things. Its not a black and white issue.
Our healthcare system isn't run by a free market. Operating cost effectively, and "run by the government" are basically mutually exclusive, while being "for profit" and operating cost effectively aren't. Being run by government doesn't automatically force the activity to be any more or less "efficient" than the private sector. The biggest difference between the two being that one has such a huge backing in the form of alternative income. This can cause poor investment decisions that would normally make a company less competitive or bankrupt it outright. Beyond that, however, there is nothing inherent in government that would make it any less ideal than private sector. Profit incentive is still there, as are many proper levels of compensation. Much of the groundbreaking research happens in public university labs anyways, and is only refined in private corporation labs.
Actually, the profit incentive for government programs is quite poor. Government programs face two primary problems: ambiguous profit measurement and poor feedback loop. For business, money measures success/failure; for most government programs it's not so clear (student passing rate? life expectancy? commuters transported?). Most government programs are initiated with specific program criteria goals, but these are rarely updated and the people who draft the goals are not experts (politicians, who are mostly lawyers). The second problem is that it has a poor feedback loop. If a business does poorly, consumers reflect that in their purchases (which is instantaneous and usually well informed). If a government program does poorly, consumers reflect that through voting. Voting is not instantaneous, nor are voters usually well informed. Not to mention that most elections have poor voter turnout and most voters rarely vote on just a singular issue.
|
On March 01 2012 14:36 DoubleReed wrote:
You know, all this talk how economics makes me ask a simple question: What's the point?
I mean, what's the point of having such a powerful economy? It seems like all we're using it for is make our economy even more powerful. I don't think that's right.
Personally, I'm starting to think a serious issue with our economy is that we don't have any actual goals with it. We aren't actively saying what we want this strong economy to do. We just say we want jobs and money and such.
I think when the Romans and various civilizations used their economy to fund military expeditions, that made sense. Sure, military spending seems like kind of a waste of money, but come on, at least they were using their economy. They had a goal. In the Cold War we were fighting the Soviets and we actually used our economy to build giant useless weaponry. And it worked. I mean, all I hear about in these economic talks is how to solve the problems right now. This isn't how things are run. You have to think long term. What do we want?
So as a modern democracy we can't just be warlike. That's not really sensible. But let's be open about what we want our economy to do. Do we want to be able to have better medicine and healthcare? Maybe we could use our economy to actually fund our medical expenses. Maybe we go further into space. Maybe we develop artificial intelligence. Maybe we actively promote human rights across the globe. Maybe we push artistic endeavors to new heights and scopes.
What's the point of being a superpower when our standard of living isn't the highest? What is the bloody point of having such a powerful economy if we aren't going to care about how we use it?
We live in a global economy, so we do well to be comparatively better than other nations. Sure, we can blow our money on social security and healthcare, but for every % in GDP we lose because of it, other countries will be catching up in economic power (and relative standard of living). Over the long term, this isn't a sustainable model as eventually, you are no longer a super power. The EU is facing this to a certain degree right now over the last 50-100 years. China had this problem during the latter half of the Qing dynasty.
|
On March 01 2012 14:46 gchan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 14:01 aksfjh wrote:On March 01 2012 13:20 Kiarip wrote:On March 01 2012 11:53 Focuspants wrote:
The statement "the private sector is ALWAYS going to provide a better service at a lower cost" is inherently false. Look at your medical and health care system. Its a failure for anyone that isnt rich. Certain things, such as healthcare, should be run by the government, with 2 goals in mind, first being providing good care for EVERYONE, and second operating cost effectively (NOT FOR PROFIT). I think government and the private sector are both needed, and both are better at different things. Its not a black and white issue.
Our healthcare system isn't run by a free market. Operating cost effectively, and "run by the government" are basically mutually exclusive, while being "for profit" and operating cost effectively aren't. Being run by government doesn't automatically force the activity to be any more or less "efficient" than the private sector. The biggest difference between the two being that one has such a huge backing in the form of alternative income. This can cause poor investment decisions that would normally make a company less competitive or bankrupt it outright. Beyond that, however, there is nothing inherent in government that would make it any less ideal than private sector. Profit incentive is still there, as are many proper levels of compensation. Much of the groundbreaking research happens in public university labs anyways, and is only refined in private corporation labs. Actually, the profit incentive for government programs is quite poor. Government programs face two primary problems: ambiguous profit measurement and poor feedback loop. For business, money measures success/failure; for most government programs it's not so clear (student passing rate? life expectancy? commuters transported?). Most government programs are initiated with specific program criteria goals, but these are rarely updated and the people who draft the goals are not experts (politicians, who are mostly lawyers). The second problem is that it has a poor feedback loop. If a business does poorly, consumers reflect that in their purchases (which is instantaneous and usually well informed). If a government program does poorly, consumers reflect that through voting. Voting is not instantaneous, nor are voters usually well informed. Not to mention that most elections have poor voter turnout and most voters rarely vote on just a singular issue.
Of course, but these can all be solved by reform and proper administration.
|
On March 01 2012 14:51 gchan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 14:36 DoubleReed wrote:
You know, all this talk how economics makes me ask a simple question: What's the point?
I mean, what's the point of having such a powerful economy? It seems like all we're using it for is make our economy even more powerful. I don't think that's right.
Personally, I'm starting to think a serious issue with our economy is that we don't have any actual goals with it. We aren't actively saying what we want this strong economy to do. We just say we want jobs and money and such.
I think when the Romans and various civilizations used their economy to fund military expeditions, that made sense. Sure, military spending seems like kind of a waste of money, but come on, at least they were using their economy. They had a goal. In the Cold War we were fighting the Soviets and we actually used our economy to build giant useless weaponry. And it worked. I mean, all I hear about in these economic talks is how to solve the problems right now. This isn't how things are run. You have to think long term. What do we want?
So as a modern democracy we can't just be warlike. That's not really sensible. But let's be open about what we want our economy to do. Do we want to be able to have better medicine and healthcare? Maybe we could use our economy to actually fund our medical expenses. Maybe we go further into space. Maybe we develop artificial intelligence. Maybe we actively promote human rights across the globe. Maybe we push artistic endeavors to new heights and scopes.
What's the point of being a superpower when our standard of living isn't the highest? What is the bloody point of having such a powerful economy if we aren't going to care about how we use it? We live in a global economy, so we do well to be comparatively better than other nations. Sure, we can blow our money on social security and healthcare, but for every % in GDP we lose because of it, other countries will be catching up in economic power (and relative standard of living). Over the long term, this isn't a sustainable model as eventually, you are no longer a super power. The EU is facing this to a certain degree right now over the last 50-100 years. China had this problem during the latter half of the Qing dynasty.
But we don't have the best standard of living and yet we have tons of economic power (same with China as well). They aren't directly correlated. Not by a long shot. We clearly don't care about having a good standard of living, at least not nearly as much as we care about economic power.
And your post was all about money, once again. I understand we want a sustainable model. But okay, once we have it, what the hell is the point? What are we going to do with the money? Make more money? This all sounds incredibly short-sighted. There's no actual goal. We have no idea what we want other than the fact that we want more money.
|
On March 01 2012 14:51 gchan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 14:36 DoubleReed wrote:
You know, all this talk how economics makes me ask a simple question: What's the point?
I mean, what's the point of having such a powerful economy? It seems like all we're using it for is make our economy even more powerful. I don't think that's right.
Personally, I'm starting to think a serious issue with our economy is that we don't have any actual goals with it. We aren't actively saying what we want this strong economy to do. We just say we want jobs and money and such.
I think when the Romans and various civilizations used their economy to fund military expeditions, that made sense. Sure, military spending seems like kind of a waste of money, but come on, at least they were using their economy. They had a goal. In the Cold War we were fighting the Soviets and we actually used our economy to build giant useless weaponry. And it worked. I mean, all I hear about in these economic talks is how to solve the problems right now. This isn't how things are run. You have to think long term. What do we want?
So as a modern democracy we can't just be warlike. That's not really sensible. But let's be open about what we want our economy to do. Do we want to be able to have better medicine and healthcare? Maybe we could use our economy to actually fund our medical expenses. Maybe we go further into space. Maybe we develop artificial intelligence. Maybe we actively promote human rights across the globe. Maybe we push artistic endeavors to new heights and scopes.
What's the point of being a superpower when our standard of living isn't the highest? What is the bloody point of having such a powerful economy if we aren't going to care about how we use it? We live in a global economy, so we do well to be comparatively better than other nations. Sure, we can blow our money on social security and healthcare, but for every % in GDP we lose because of it, other countries will be catching up in economic power (and relative standard of living). Over the long term, this isn't a sustainable model as eventually, you are no longer a super power. The EU is facing this to a certain degree right now over the last 50-100 years. China had this problem during the latter half of the Qing dynasty.
You do well "comparatively", because for your precious Dollar there are other rules applied because it (still) is the currency of the world and oil is tied to it. And that is your reason "Europe" lost its status as a super power? Europe itself never was a super power - certain countries were, yet today, if political unity were there, it could be a global player on the same level as China/USA/Russia for example, Europe got the economy, as well as to some degree, the military for it. Also, you are aware that of course other countries such as India and China are growing, yet they still envy us for our level of education, standard of living and our freedoms, and will until they have caught up in quite some years to come. In the long run their population, the more developed those countries get, they WILL want to have certain social benefits that are used for granted in other countries. Competition is a great key to work hard, but it sure as hell is not the only one - I think his question aims right to the core - why do we struggle so hard if our wealth is so disconnected from the hardships and hard work(who is paying for the crisis?), and only a small privileged group reaps,for the most part, the benefits(bank bailouts - crony capitalism, lobbyists writing laws to obstruct adequate taxation - institutionalized corruption if you want.)
|
On March 01 2012 14:46 gchan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 14:01 aksfjh wrote:On March 01 2012 13:20 Kiarip wrote:On March 01 2012 11:53 Focuspants wrote:
The statement "the private sector is ALWAYS going to provide a better service at a lower cost" is inherently false. Look at your medical and health care system. Its a failure for anyone that isnt rich. Certain things, such as healthcare, should be run by the government, with 2 goals in mind, first being providing good care for EVERYONE, and second operating cost effectively (NOT FOR PROFIT). I think government and the private sector are both needed, and both are better at different things. Its not a black and white issue.
Our healthcare system isn't run by a free market. Operating cost effectively, and "run by the government" are basically mutually exclusive, while being "for profit" and operating cost effectively aren't. Being run by government doesn't automatically force the activity to be any more or less "efficient" than the private sector. The biggest difference between the two being that one has such a huge backing in the form of alternative income. This can cause poor investment decisions that would normally make a company less competitive or bankrupt it outright. Beyond that, however, there is nothing inherent in government that would make it any less ideal than private sector. Profit incentive is still there, as are many proper levels of compensation. Much of the groundbreaking research happens in public university labs anyways, and is only refined in private corporation labs. Actually, the profit incentive for government programs is quite poor. Government programs face two primary problems: ambiguous profit measurement and poor feedback loop. For business, money measures success/failure; for most government programs it's not so clear (student passing rate? life expectancy? commuters transported?). Most government programs are initiated with specific program criteria goals, but these are rarely updated and the people who draft the goals are not experts (politicians, who are mostly lawyers). The second problem is that it has a poor feedback loop. If a business does poorly, consumers reflect that in their purchases (which is instantaneous and usually well informed). If a government program does poorly, consumers reflect that through voting. Voting is not instantaneous, nor are voters usually well informed. Not to mention that most elections have poor voter turnout and most voters rarely vote on just a singular issue.
Stopped reading at the bolded part. Noone in their right mind thinks that in the current system you have a well informed public. What are the trillions spent on advertising and PR + Show Spoiler +hell throw any network television program filling slots between adds into the equasion as well, they are there to persuade you to watch the ads after all.
|
On March 01 2012 15:07 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 14:51 gchan wrote:On March 01 2012 14:36 DoubleReed wrote:
You know, all this talk how economics makes me ask a simple question: What's the point?
I mean, what's the point of having such a powerful economy? It seems like all we're using it for is make our economy even more powerful. I don't think that's right.
Personally, I'm starting to think a serious issue with our economy is that we don't have any actual goals with it. We aren't actively saying what we want this strong economy to do. We just say we want jobs and money and such.
I think when the Romans and various civilizations used their economy to fund military expeditions, that made sense. Sure, military spending seems like kind of a waste of money, but come on, at least they were using their economy. They had a goal. In the Cold War we were fighting the Soviets and we actually used our economy to build giant useless weaponry. And it worked. I mean, all I hear about in these economic talks is how to solve the problems right now. This isn't how things are run. You have to think long term. What do we want?
So as a modern democracy we can't just be warlike. That's not really sensible. But let's be open about what we want our economy to do. Do we want to be able to have better medicine and healthcare? Maybe we could use our economy to actually fund our medical expenses. Maybe we go further into space. Maybe we develop artificial intelligence. Maybe we actively promote human rights across the globe. Maybe we push artistic endeavors to new heights and scopes.
What's the point of being a superpower when our standard of living isn't the highest? What is the bloody point of having such a powerful economy if we aren't going to care about how we use it? We live in a global economy, so we do well to be comparatively better than other nations. Sure, we can blow our money on social security and healthcare, but for every % in GDP we lose because of it, other countries will be catching up in economic power (and relative standard of living). Over the long term, this isn't a sustainable model as eventually, you are no longer a super power. The EU is facing this to a certain degree right now over the last 50-100 years. China had this problem during the latter half of the Qing dynasty. But we don't have the best standard of living and yet we have tons of economic power (same with China as well). They aren't directly correlated. Not by a long shot. We clearly don't care about having a good standard of living, at least not nearly as much as we care about economic power. And your post was all about money, once again. I understand we want a sustainable model. But okay, once we have it, what the hell is the point? What are we going to do with the money? Make more money? This all sounds incredibly short-sighted. There's no actual goal. We have no idea what we want other than the fact that we want more money.
If you don't think we have a good standard of living, try going across the border to Mexico or across the ocean to Africa. If you want to compare our standard of living to, say, some small European country with a high HDI, you're comparing apples and oranges. Of course it's easy to provide health care for a dense country like Netherlands. It's not so easy for a country nearly the size of Europe with less than half the population.
To your second point, money is standard of living. More money is more technology which is better standard of living. Americans have more money now than they did 50, 100, 200 years ago. We live longer now. We have access to all varieties of food at our fingertips. We can access the entire world's information with a click. You don't think that's higher standard of living?
|
On March 01 2012 15:19 Dapper_Cad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 14:46 gchan wrote:On March 01 2012 14:01 aksfjh wrote:On March 01 2012 13:20 Kiarip wrote:On March 01 2012 11:53 Focuspants wrote:
The statement "the private sector is ALWAYS going to provide a better service at a lower cost" is inherently false. Look at your medical and health care system. Its a failure for anyone that isnt rich. Certain things, such as healthcare, should be run by the government, with 2 goals in mind, first being providing good care for EVERYONE, and second operating cost effectively (NOT FOR PROFIT). I think government and the private sector are both needed, and both are better at different things. Its not a black and white issue.
Our healthcare system isn't run by a free market. Operating cost effectively, and "run by the government" are basically mutually exclusive, while being "for profit" and operating cost effectively aren't. Being run by government doesn't automatically force the activity to be any more or less "efficient" than the private sector. The biggest difference between the two being that one has such a huge backing in the form of alternative income. This can cause poor investment decisions that would normally make a company less competitive or bankrupt it outright. Beyond that, however, there is nothing inherent in government that would make it any less ideal than private sector. Profit incentive is still there, as are many proper levels of compensation. Much of the groundbreaking research happens in public university labs anyways, and is only refined in private corporation labs. Actually, the profit incentive for government programs is quite poor. Government programs face two primary problems: ambiguous profit measurement and poor feedback loop. For business, money measures success/failure; for most government programs it's not so clear (student passing rate? life expectancy? commuters transported?). Most government programs are initiated with specific program criteria goals, but these are rarely updated and the people who draft the goals are not experts (politicians, who are mostly lawyers). The second problem is that it has a poor feedback loop. If a business does poorly, consumers reflect that in their purchases (which is instantaneous and usually well informed). If a government program does poorly, consumers reflect that through voting. Voting is not instantaneous, nor are voters usually well informed. Not to mention that most elections have poor voter turnout and most voters rarely vote on just a singular issue. Stopped reading at the bolded part. Noone in their right mind thinks that in the current system you have a well informed public. What are the trillions spent on advertising and PR + Show Spoiler +hell throw any network television program filling slots between adds into the equasion as well, they are there to persuade you to watch the ads after all. for if not for adding value where none exists?
It may not be well informed to you, but it is to the person buying it. A person needs only to be well informed enough to know that buying a product will make them happy. Why do you think people buy Apple products? How many people do you know regret buying Apple products? It may be a poorly informed decision to you, but to them, it was informed. They got utility out of it, and they are happy with it.
|
On March 01 2012 15:15 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 14:51 gchan wrote:On March 01 2012 14:36 DoubleReed wrote:
You know, all this talk how economics makes me ask a simple question: What's the point?
I mean, what's the point of having such a powerful economy? It seems like all we're using it for is make our economy even more powerful. I don't think that's right.
Personally, I'm starting to think a serious issue with our economy is that we don't have any actual goals with it. We aren't actively saying what we want this strong economy to do. We just say we want jobs and money and such.
I think when the Romans and various civilizations used their economy to fund military expeditions, that made sense. Sure, military spending seems like kind of a waste of money, but come on, at least they were using their economy. They had a goal. In the Cold War we were fighting the Soviets and we actually used our economy to build giant useless weaponry. And it worked. I mean, all I hear about in these economic talks is how to solve the problems right now. This isn't how things are run. You have to think long term. What do we want?
So as a modern democracy we can't just be warlike. That's not really sensible. But let's be open about what we want our economy to do. Do we want to be able to have better medicine and healthcare? Maybe we could use our economy to actually fund our medical expenses. Maybe we go further into space. Maybe we develop artificial intelligence. Maybe we actively promote human rights across the globe. Maybe we push artistic endeavors to new heights and scopes.
What's the point of being a superpower when our standard of living isn't the highest? What is the bloody point of having such a powerful economy if we aren't going to care about how we use it? We live in a global economy, so we do well to be comparatively better than other nations. Sure, we can blow our money on social security and healthcare, but for every % in GDP we lose because of it, other countries will be catching up in economic power (and relative standard of living). Over the long term, this isn't a sustainable model as eventually, you are no longer a super power. The EU is facing this to a certain degree right now over the last 50-100 years. China had this problem during the latter half of the Qing dynasty. You do well "comparatively", because for your precious Dollar there are other rules applied because it (still) is the currency of the world and oil is tied to it. And that is your reason "Europe" lost its status as a super power? Europe itself never was a super power - certain countries were, yet today, if political unity were there, it could be a global player on the same level as China/USA/Russia for example, Europe got the economy, as well as to some degree, the military for it. Also, you are aware that of course other countries such as India and China are growing, yet they still envy us for our level of education, standard of living and our freedoms, and will until they have caught up in quite some years to come. In the long run their population, the more developed those countries get, they WILL want to have certain social benefits that are used for granted in other countries. Competition is a great key to work hard, but it sure as hell is not the only one - I think his question aims right to the core - why do we struggle so hard if our wealth is so disconnected from the hardships and hard work(who is paying for the crisis?), and only a small privileged group reaps,for the most part, the benefits(bank bailouts - crony capitalism, lobbyists writing laws to obstruct adequate taxation - institutionalized corruption if you want.)
I think Europe has lost some of it's relative positioning in the world because many of their social programs are coming at the cost of development (take Italy the last 30 years for example, France if you look at the last 100 years). Of course not every country is the same, so I'm just generalizing here for speed.
As to your second point, I don't disagree that as people get more wealthy, they want more social services. I'm talking from a pure economic development standpoint, wanting to continuously develop economically to be relatively better than other countries is an ideal. At some point though, as with all human populations, social stability has to be taken into consideration by the government. Personally, I don't care much about public health care and social security, but I acknowledge that other people want these things. I just don't think many people fully realize what are the consequences of these programs.
|
I don't understand why people think health care should be market driven. If it were completely market driven, medical companies wouldn't have enough incentive to cure diseases. They'd have way more incentive to create expensive medicine that lowers the symptoms that you have to keep buying in order to stay "healthy".
That's why the US health care system is so perverted. It's really fucked up.
|
On March 01 2012 14:51 gchan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 14:36 DoubleReed wrote:
You know, all this talk how economics makes me ask a simple question: What's the point?
I mean, what's the point of having such a powerful economy? It seems like all we're using it for is make our economy even more powerful. I don't think that's right.
Personally, I'm starting to think a serious issue with our economy is that we don't have any actual goals with it. We aren't actively saying what we want this strong economy to do. We just say we want jobs and money and such.
I think when the Romans and various civilizations used their economy to fund military expeditions, that made sense. Sure, military spending seems like kind of a waste of money, but come on, at least they were using their economy. They had a goal. In the Cold War we were fighting the Soviets and we actually used our economy to build giant useless weaponry. And it worked. I mean, all I hear about in these economic talks is how to solve the problems right now. This isn't how things are run. You have to think long term. What do we want?
So as a modern democracy we can't just be warlike. That's not really sensible. But let's be open about what we want our economy to do. Do we want to be able to have better medicine and healthcare? Maybe we could use our economy to actually fund our medical expenses. Maybe we go further into space. Maybe we develop artificial intelligence. Maybe we actively promote human rights across the globe. Maybe we push artistic endeavors to new heights and scopes.
What's the point of being a superpower when our standard of living isn't the highest? What is the bloody point of having such a powerful economy if we aren't going to care about how we use it? We live in a global economy, so we do well to be comparatively better than other nations. Sure, we can blow our money on social security and healthcare, but for every % in GDP we lose because of it, other countries will be catching up in economic power (and relative standard of living). Over the long term, this isn't a sustainable model as eventually, you are no longer a super power. The EU is facing this to a certain degree right now over the last 50-100 years. China had this problem during the latter half of the Qing dynasty.
This is bizzare. All (?) Mondern economies that has been radically successful quickly have been economies of government tax and investment. The explosion of japan, from the aftermath of a devastating war to a world industrial and technological leader in fourty years, with a healthcare system in which
. West Germany taking on an East Germany which might be described as closer to the third world that the first at the time and ending up as a regional super power while having successive governments the policies of which would be called "socialist" in American popular debate.
When this isn't the case, when the government tries to take a back seat, countries collapse. Countries like Russia in the 90s and Brazil last decade.
Seriously, what the hell are you studying?
|
On March 01 2012 15:45 gchan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 15:15 Doublemint wrote:On March 01 2012 14:51 gchan wrote:On March 01 2012 14:36 DoubleReed wrote:
You know, all this talk how economics makes me ask a simple question: What's the point?
I mean, what's the point of having such a powerful economy? It seems like all we're using it for is make our economy even more powerful. I don't think that's right.
Personally, I'm starting to think a serious issue with our economy is that we don't have any actual goals with it. We aren't actively saying what we want this strong economy to do. We just say we want jobs and money and such.
I think when the Romans and various civilizations used their economy to fund military expeditions, that made sense. Sure, military spending seems like kind of a waste of money, but come on, at least they were using their economy. They had a goal. In the Cold War we were fighting the Soviets and we actually used our economy to build giant useless weaponry. And it worked. I mean, all I hear about in these economic talks is how to solve the problems right now. This isn't how things are run. You have to think long term. What do we want?
So as a modern democracy we can't just be warlike. That's not really sensible. But let's be open about what we want our economy to do. Do we want to be able to have better medicine and healthcare? Maybe we could use our economy to actually fund our medical expenses. Maybe we go further into space. Maybe we develop artificial intelligence. Maybe we actively promote human rights across the globe. Maybe we push artistic endeavors to new heights and scopes.
What's the point of being a superpower when our standard of living isn't the highest? What is the bloody point of having such a powerful economy if we aren't going to care about how we use it? We live in a global economy, so we do well to be comparatively better than other nations. Sure, we can blow our money on social security and healthcare, but for every % in GDP we lose because of it, other countries will be catching up in economic power (and relative standard of living). Over the long term, this isn't a sustainable model as eventually, you are no longer a super power. The EU is facing this to a certain degree right now over the last 50-100 years. China had this problem during the latter half of the Qing dynasty. You do well "comparatively", because for your precious Dollar there are other rules applied because it (still) is the currency of the world and oil is tied to it. And that is your reason "Europe" lost its status as a super power? Europe itself never was a super power - certain countries were, yet today, if political unity were there, it could be a global player on the same level as China/USA/Russia for example, Europe got the economy, as well as to some degree, the military for it. Also, you are aware that of course other countries such as India and China are growing, yet they still envy us for our level of education, standard of living and our freedoms, and will until they have caught up in quite some years to come. In the long run their population, the more developed those countries get, they WILL want to have certain social benefits that are used for granted in other countries. Competition is a great key to work hard, but it sure as hell is not the only one - I think his question aims right to the core - why do we struggle so hard if our wealth is so disconnected from the hardships and hard work(who is paying for the crisis?), and only a small privileged group reaps,for the most part, the benefits(bank bailouts - crony capitalism, lobbyists writing laws to obstruct adequate taxation - institutionalized corruption if you want.) I think Europe has lost some of it's relative positioning in the world because many of their social programs are coming at the cost of development (take Italy the last 30 years for example, France if you look at the last 100 years). Of course not every country is the same, so I'm just generalizing here for speed. As to your second point, I don't disagree that as people get more wealthy, they want more social services. I'm talking from a pure economic development standpoint, wanting to continuously develop economically to be relatively better than other countries is an ideal. At some point though, as with all human populations, social stability has to be taken into consideration by the government. Personally, I don't care much about public health care and social security, but I acknowledge that other people want these things. I just don't think many people fully realize what are the consequences of these programs.
I can relate to that answer - but as much as we want it sometimes, our main focal point of ideas(in your case economics) does not grasp the the whole bandwidth of "life"(that´s true for pretty much every ideology/economic theory, whatever). Yet if we weigh in the pros and cons for example "decent" healthcare for the mass to the status quo in the US, "excellent care" for people who can afford it, I would say having a healthy populus will indeed benefit the whole country, as well as the economy. There are problems with both systems, for example as you mentioned governments tend to spend ineffieciently which is 100% true, but in this case if the outcomed outweighs the disadvantages, in this case taxes have to be increased(in a country where are absurd loopholes for corporations/"rich people" in the tax code), I don´t see why not. And as much as growth and having successful entrepreneurs is a great thing, social stability is a great benefactor to quality of life/economy/a country as a whole. Growing for growth´s sake is unsatisfactory.
And yes within the EU, countries are very different. More so than in the US because of language barrier/mentality, but when it comes to economy there are quite some similarities. Greece/California anyone? The one thing that America has going for it are slightly less incompetent politicians(especially if you look at the handling of the "euro crisis/greece"...)
|
On March 01 2012 15:49 Meta wrote:
I don't understand why people think health care should be market driven. If it were completely market driven, medical companies wouldn't have enough incentive to cure diseases. They'd have way more incentive to create expensive medicine that lowers the symptoms that you have to keep buying in order to stay "healthy".
That's why the US health care system is so perverted. It's really fucked up.
Competition.
If you only treat a cold and your competitor finds a way to cure it, not only is he going to make a killing, you're going to lose all your customers.
|
On March 01 2012 14:36 DoubleReed wrote:
You know, all this talk how economics makes me ask a simple question: What's the point?
I mean, what's the point of having such a powerful economy? It seems like all we're using it for is make our economy even more powerful. I don't think that's right.
Personally, I'm starting to think a serious issue with our economy is that we don't have any actual goals with it. We aren't actively saying what we want this strong economy to do. We just say we want jobs and money and such.
I think when the Romans and various civilizations used their economy to fund military expeditions, that made sense. Sure, military spending seems like kind of a waste of money, but come on, at least they were using their economy. They had a goal. In the Cold War we were fighting the Soviets and we actually used our economy to build giant useless weaponry. And it worked. I mean, all I hear about in these economic talks is how to solve the problems right now. This isn't how things are run. You have to think long term. What do we want?
So as a modern democracy we can't just be warlike. That's not really sensible. But let's be open about what we want our economy to do. Do we want to be able to have better medicine and healthcare? Maybe we could use our economy to actually fund our medical expenses. Maybe we go further into space. Maybe we develop artificial intelligence. Maybe we actively promote human rights across the globe. Maybe we push artistic endeavors to new heights and scopes.
What's the point of being a superpower when our standard of living isn't the highest? What is the bloody point of having such a powerful economy if we aren't going to care about how we use it?
The point is to build a prosperus free society. There is NO ultimate goal, but we let people CHOOSE what they want and how they get it. Be it space ships or curing diseases is up to the individuals. If many people want something, there will always be someone willing to do it and reap the rewards.
|
On March 01 2012 15:29 gchan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 15:19 Dapper_Cad wrote:On March 01 2012 14:46 gchan wrote:On March 01 2012 14:01 aksfjh wrote:On March 01 2012 13:20 Kiarip wrote:On March 01 2012 11:53 Focuspants wrote:
The statement "the private sector is ALWAYS going to provide a better service at a lower cost" is inherently false. Look at your medical and health care system. Its a failure for anyone that isnt rich. Certain things, such as healthcare, should be run by the government, with 2 goals in mind, first being providing good care for EVERYONE, and second operating cost effectively (NOT FOR PROFIT). I think government and the private sector are both needed, and both are better at different things. Its not a black and white issue.
Our healthcare system isn't run by a free market. Operating cost effectively, and "run by the government" are basically mutually exclusive, while being "for profit" and operating cost effectively aren't. Being run by government doesn't automatically force the activity to be any more or less "efficient" than the private sector. The biggest difference between the two being that one has such a huge backing in the form of alternative income. This can cause poor investment decisions that would normally make a company less competitive or bankrupt it outright. Beyond that, however, there is nothing inherent in government that would make it any less ideal than private sector. Profit incentive is still there, as are many proper levels of compensation. Much of the groundbreaking research happens in public university labs anyways, and is only refined in private corporation labs. Actually, the profit incentive for government programs is quite poor. Government programs face two primary problems: ambiguous profit measurement and poor feedback loop. For business, money measures success/failure; for most government programs it's not so clear (student passing rate? life expectancy? commuters transported?). Most government programs are initiated with specific program criteria goals, but these are rarely updated and the people who draft the goals are not experts (politicians, who are mostly lawyers). The second problem is that it has a poor feedback loop. If a business does poorly, consumers reflect that in their purchases (which is instantaneous and usually well informed). If a government program does poorly, consumers reflect that through voting. Voting is not instantaneous, nor are voters usually well informed. Not to mention that most elections have poor voter turnout and most voters rarely vote on just a singular issue. Stopped reading at the bolded part. Noone in their right mind thinks that in the current system you have a well informed public. What are the trillions spent on advertising and PR + Show Spoiler +hell throw any network television program filling slots between adds into the equasion as well, they are there to persuade you to watch the ads after all. for if not for adding value where none exists? It may not be well informed to you, but it is to the person buying it. A person needs only to be well informed enough to know that buying a product will make them happy. Why do you think people buy Apple products? How many people do you know regret buying Apple products? It may be a poorly informed decision to you, but to them, it was informed. They got utility out of it, and they are happy with it.
I make no judgement of weather any single purchase is "well informed" or not. What I'm saying is that the purpose of constantly present advertising is to add value where there was none before. Create it out of thin air so that people buy that thing paying more than they would have had they been allowed a choice unburdened by a deluge of images designed to associate everyday objects with things like lust, love, power and status. In and of itself that's a pretty good definition of "poorly informed".
Also... Do you work for apple?
|
One day before a critical Senate vote that could loom large as a 2012 election issue, Mitt Romney came out for a congressional Republican measure designed to roll back the Obama administration’s requirement that employer health plans cover birth control.
“Governor Romney supports the Blunt Bill because he believes in a conscience exemption in health care for religious institutions and people of faith,” Romney spokesperson Andrea Saul told TPM.
The Blunt amendment, which is scheduled for a Senate vote on Thursday, would permit employers to deny coverage of birth control or other services they deem morally objectionable.
Romney’s position had been brought into doubt after tweets from a local TV station reporter suggested the candidate had objected to the proposed bill. The candidate’s campaign released a statement saying, “Regarding the Blunt bill, the way the question was asked was confusing.”
To clear up any confusion, Romney himself weighed in, telling radio host Howie Carr, “I didn’t understand the question. Of course, I support the Blunt amendment. I thought he was talking about some state law that prevented people from getting contraception.”
Source
|
On March 01 2012 16:13 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 15:49 Meta wrote:
I don't understand why people think health care should be market driven. If it were completely market driven, medical companies wouldn't have enough incentive to cure diseases. They'd have way more incentive to create expensive medicine that lowers the symptoms that you have to keep buying in order to stay "healthy".
That's why the US health care system is so perverted. It's really fucked up. Competition. If you only treat a cold and your competitor finds a way to cure it, not only is he going to make a killing, you're going to lose all your customers.
Yea cause all the oil companies are jumping at the idea of lowering prices below their competitors!!! The pharm. industry operates much the same way. The big companies are so big, there is no chance of competition. Its easier to just work with the company you would be competing with to maintain high prices, since medication, much like gasoline, is essential.
This business practice is supposed to be illegal, but its clear that doesnt mean anything as theyve been doing it for ages. Your trust in corporations is too great.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
