|
On October 11 2013 22:13 capu wrote:
How are you guys holding up there? Is it total anarchy and chaos? I haven't seen much info in the papers about what's going on in the US and I hope it's not because everything has gone sour over there. I think now we need strong leadership from Obama more than ever to stem the possibility of civil war and use extreme measures to keep the peace.
It's annoying to get some documentation if you need it from the federal government. (IE social security ID cards or passports). That's the largest thing that's personally affected me about it.
|
United States24690 Posts
I am supposed to travel soon, paid for by the government. Well that's getting delayed!
My dad does contract work for the government... that's not going so hot right now either.
I know people who have been furloughed. It's affecting some of us more seriously than others... don't only listen to the people who have been fortunate.
|
On October 11 2013 14:57 IgnE wrote:
Has anyone met anyone that really wants the ACA passed funded specifically so that they, individually, can benefit? I mostly see arguments from people who want it for others or don't want it for others.
That would be me- I mean, I'd much rather have a single payer system, but it definitely affects me. I haven't seen a doctor in over a decade and had pretty much given up on the system entirely (wife works and I stay home). Health is too poor to work, pre-existing conditions keep me from seeing a doctor... pretty much in purgatory until that stroke or heart attack sends me to the ER. ACA isn't perfect, but potentially gives me a second lease on life (we'll see).
|
Can someone explain in simple terms what's actually happening in the US at the moment? I don't understand (as someoen from the UK) how your government can simply 'shut down'. What takes it's place? Who's making the decisions?
|
On October 12 2013 00:41 Nekovivie wrote:
Can someone explain in simple terms what's actually happening in the US at the moment? I don't understand (as someoen from the UK) how your government can simply 'shut down'. What takes it's place? Who's making the decisions?
Non essential Government programs have been cut fudning temporarily because congress is still debating a budget plan. This causes these programs to 'shut down' in a way, though some of them are still slightly operational, just most of the workers are furloughed. The programs include NASA, FDA, national parks, ect. Also congressmen don't get paid anymore...
haha JK, they still do and their government run gym is still open to. America.
|
On October 12 2013 00:34 micronesia wrote:
I am supposed to travel soon, paid for by the government. Well that's getting delayed!
My dad does contract work for the government... that's not going so hot right now either.
I know people who have been furloughed. It's affecting some of us more seriously than others... don't only listen to the people who have been fortunate.
I wasn't trying to trvialize it, I was just honestly stating what effects I've personally felt from it. I'm not even well off, I'm unemployed and trying to get a job and think the government shutdown is terrible with the only upside being that hopefully the Republican party will implode.
It's definitely a terrible thing to have going on. I'm mostly glad that it hasn't affected me more personally but I do know that if it keeps going on it's going to spiral wider and wider. It's certainly ruining people's lives, it's just that it's a select group that most people don't care about or just take for granted.
I know I'll feel the effects of this later on more heavily. Currently it's probably making getting a job a more difficult task, so there's that affecting me as well.
|
On October 12 2013 00:46 FeUerFlieGe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2013 00:41 Nekovivie wrote:
Can someone explain in simple terms what's actually happening in the US at the moment? I don't understand (as someoen from the UK) how your government can simply 'shut down'. What takes it's place? Who's making the decisions? Non essential Government programs have been cut fudning temporarily because congress is still debating a budget plan. This causes these programs to 'shut down' in a way, though some of them are still slightly operational, just most of the workers are furloughed. The programs include NASA, FDA, national parks, ect. Also congressmen don't get paid anymore... haha JK, they still do and their government run gym is still open to. America.
Hey, they ran out of clean towels. They're having to reuse gym towels. The horror.
|
On October 12 2013 00:50 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2013 00:46 FeUerFlieGe wrote:On October 12 2013 00:41 Nekovivie wrote:
Can someone explain in simple terms what's actually happening in the US at the moment? I don't understand (as someoen from the UK) how your government can simply 'shut down'. What takes it's place? Who's making the decisions? Non essential Government programs have been cut fudning temporarily because congress is still debating a budget plan. This causes these programs to 'shut down' in a way, though some of them are still slightly operational, just most of the workers are furloughed. The programs include NASA, FDA, national parks, ect. Also congressmen don't get paid anymore... haha JK, they still do and their government run gym is still open to. America. Hey, they ran out of clean towels. They're having to reuse gym towels. The horror.
People who wish the congressmen get an insanely itchy rash for their incredible work are plain bad. Right?
|
On October 12 2013 00:34 micronesia wrote:
I am supposed to travel soon, paid for by the government. Well that's getting delayed!
My dad does contract work for the government... that's not going so hot right now either.
I know people who have been furloughed. It's affecting some of us more seriously than others... don't only listen to the people who have been fortunate.
Yeah, sorry for making light of the situation. I'm aware that it has had some very bad effects for many people. I just thought it was funny that the guy earlier seemed to think we had descended into anarchy so I tried to make it a joke, perhaps in poor taste.
|
If the shutdown goes through next week (regardless of the debt ceiling deal) I think LOTS of contractors are going to be affected. (Myself included)
Many government agencies have been able to operate normally using reserve funding for 10 business days. That runs out on Tuesday next week.
|
On October 12 2013 00:36 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2013 14:57 IgnE wrote:
Has anyone met anyone that really wants the ACA passed funded specifically so that they, individually, can benefit? I mostly see arguments from people who want it for others or don't want it for others. That would be me- I mean, I'd much rather have a single payer system, but it definitely affects me. I haven't seen a doctor in over a decade and had pretty much given up on the system entirely (wife works and I stay home). Health is too poor to work, pre-existing conditions keep me from seeing a doctor... pretty much in purgatory until that stroke or heart attack sends me to the ER. ACA isn't perfect, but potentially gives me a second lease on life (we'll see).
Have you had a chance to get online and check out the plans available ? What kind of deductible are you facing ?
|
On October 12 2013 00:41 Nekovivie wrote:
Can someone explain in simple terms what's actually happening in the US at the moment? I don't understand (as someoen from the UK) how your government can simply 'shut down'. What takes it's place? Who's making the decisions?
It means approximately 18% of government workers don't come into work for a while. They can receive unemployment while they are off and then will receive back pay, effectively granting them a bonus and costing us even more money.
|
On October 12 2013 03:19 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2013 00:36 screamingpalm wrote:On October 11 2013 14:57 IgnE wrote:
Has anyone met anyone that really wants the ACA passed funded specifically so that they, individually, can benefit? I mostly see arguments from people who want it for others or don't want it for others. That would be me- I mean, I'd much rather have a single payer system, but it definitely affects me. I haven't seen a doctor in over a decade and had pretty much given up on the system entirely (wife works and I stay home). Health is too poor to work, pre-existing conditions keep me from seeing a doctor... pretty much in purgatory until that stroke or heart attack sends me to the ER. ACA isn't perfect, but potentially gives me a second lease on life (we'll see). Have you had a chance to get online and check out the plans available ? What kind of deductible are you facing ?
Haven't made it that far yet, need to get my paperwork in order... new I.D. etc. Was pretty far off "the grid", so it's taking some time, but I'll share my experience once I do.
|
On October 12 2013 01:12 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2013 00:34 micronesia wrote:
I am supposed to travel soon, paid for by the government. Well that's getting delayed!
My dad does contract work for the government... that's not going so hot right now either.
I know people who have been furloughed. It's affecting some of us more seriously than others... don't only listen to the people who have been fortunate. Yeah, sorry for making light of the situation. I'm aware that it has had some very bad effects for many people. I just thought it was funny that the guy earlier seemed to think we had descended into anarchy so I tried to make it a joke, perhaps in poor taste.
No it's cool bro. Republicans aren't really expected to give a shit about anyone else. In fact, earlier this week I remember a Republican senator cracking the exact same joke, so you're in good company.
|
On October 11 2013 12:20 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2013 12:06 Vegetarian wrote:On October 11 2013 10:36 Adila wrote:On October 11 2013 10:10 Vegetarian wrote:On October 11 2013 09:11 Adila wrote:On October 11 2013 09:01 Vegetarian wrote:On October 11 2013 04:11 Adila wrote:
Pretty sure the financial ratings agencies are privately run. That didn't stop them from giving AAA ratings for junk.
Any private agency can get corrupted by the industry it is supposed to watch just as easily as government agencies. The ratings agencies are a government sponsored oligopoly. If you or me wanted to start a ratings firm to compete with them we would not be allowed to do so by our government. Just because something is privatized does not mean it is a free market. And it's natural for companies to consolidate in a free market. Ultimately, over a period of time, the same situation would arise either way if there is no third party to intervene. That is not how it works. If you have a free market then the companies that gain the most market share, ratings agencies in this case, will have shown they are better than their competitors at evaluating the risk levels of financial assets. Further, in a free market if ratings agencies wrongly evaluate assets they will lose market share to agencies that were more accurate or to entrepreneurs that see an opportunity to enter the market when competition is weak. Maybe in fantasy land free market but in reality no. As the agencies get whittled down by the "best" ones, more resources will go to them since they are "the best". This means they have more influence. This means they have more power. And you know what more power means right? Comanies are run by people and people get corrupted by power. Else, government would be perfect and we woudln't be having this discussion. In a free market this does not mean they have more influence or power. That only exists when you give government the power to regulate companies. Absent the regulation a company can only gain more profits by doing what its customers want it to do. The entirety of history disagrees with you. The state can be a weapon used by corporations, it's true, but removal of the state in no way shape or form limits their power, in fact it strengthens it. Corporations will always make do with what they can get their hands on, it takes regulation levied by governments to limit them, and nothing else will ever work. You need to understand that capitalism did not develop out of a vacuum, it developed out of feudalism, a system which was certainly not fair. There was never a point, ever, where the ground was even and fair. You must have a pretty wacky perception of history to make such an ridiculous statement. The fact that you give no historical examples and make no logical argument as to how corporations gain more power without regulation should open your eyes at least a little bit.Capitalism is most beneficial for those who have capital, that will always be the case. There is nothing at all to stop corporations with capital from running all over everyone else without government intervention, imagine where we'd be without anti-trust laws. Companies that are rich just get richer, and can practice predatory pricing practices to keep others priced out of the markets. Oligopolies and monopolies can easily engage in price gouging and there's nothing anyone can do about it. Corporations can cut costs left and right, screwing the worker and making conditions unsafe as hell, and also produce highly unsafe products because there's nobody to stop them. Read "The Jungle". Capitalism is beneficial for people who work harder than other people. Under capitalism the only way to make more money is to work harder then your competitors whether they be other companies or workers. In capitalism you can only gain capital through voluntary transactions that both parties deem mutually beneficial.
We would be much better off without anti-trust laws but again it is your ignorance of history that again leads you to make another absurd statement. Anti-trust laws were implemented in the United States because some companies were not as efficient as other companies and realized they could gain market share by lobbying the government to dissolve competitors that were more efficient than they were. Standard Oil was sued in 1911 after continuously lowering oil prices from 30 cents a gallon in 1869 to 6 cents a gallon at the start of the trial in 1911. Standard Oil was able to achieve substantial market share by being more efficient than their competitors and selling a superior product at a lower cost to consumers. The same was true of American Tobacco which also faced trial in 1911. American Tobacco had been lowering not increasing the price of tobacco as they grew and became more efficient than competitors. The myth that companies will randomly decide to raise prices after they gain market share is a myth not supported in history. What you don't seem to understand is that in a free market it does not matter if a business becomes a monopoly because there is nothing stopping anyone else from entering that market if they can provide better products or lower prices.
Further, if you ever take an economics course you will learn that there exist alternatives to everything. There is no product or service that does not have an alternative. Government regulation is not what stops airline companies from banding together and charging $3000 a ticket. Cars, trains, buses, and boats are all alternatives that compete with airlines. Companies do not have any incentive to produce unsafe products which is why today you will be unable to come up with an example of a product that has gotten more dangerous for the consumer to use over time. It has nothing to do with government regulation and everything to do with companies trying to gain market share by offering better products. Companies that offer unsafe products don't gain market share in a free market the opposite occurs.
The Jungle is a fictional book. It might shock you, but working conditions were not always the same as they are today. In free markets people are free to work in whatever capacity they choose to. People were not forced to work in bad conditions. Working conditions were bad yet people still chose to take these jobs. In fact, some people even risked their lives travelling across the ocean just to have the chance to work in unsafe, and unsanitary working conditions. Working conditions improved not because of government regulations, but because of economic growth. Today, you can work in jobs that have free gyms, comfy chairs, and other types of benefits that the government does not mandate. Companies are always competing against each other to attract better labor than their competitors.
The argument that the consumer will balance this out by only doing business with companies that engage in 'good business practices' is not at all backed by evidence, and relies on a near perfect or perfect symmetry of information that is impossible without forced disclosure. I can list hundreds of examples of horrible business behavior that hasn't been punished by consumer spending due to a lack of information. Capitalism does not rely on perfect information where are you getting this idea from? Feel free to actually list an example or make a logical argument. Saying that you can does not make it so.
|
On October 12 2013 04:17 Vegetarian wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2013 12:20 Whitewing wrote:On October 11 2013 12:06 Vegetarian wrote:On October 11 2013 10:36 Adila wrote:On October 11 2013 10:10 Vegetarian wrote:On October 11 2013 09:11 Adila wrote:On October 11 2013 09:01 Vegetarian wrote:On October 11 2013 04:11 Adila wrote:
Pretty sure the financial ratings agencies are privately run. That didn't stop them from giving AAA ratings for junk.
Any private agency can get corrupted by the industry it is supposed to watch just as easily as government agencies. The ratings agencies are a government sponsored oligopoly. If you or me wanted to start a ratings firm to compete with them we would not be allowed to do so by our government. Just because something is privatized does not mean it is a free market. And it's natural for companies to consolidate in a free market. Ultimately, over a period of time, the same situation would arise either way if there is no third party to intervene. That is not how it works. If you have a free market then the companies that gain the most market share, ratings agencies in this case, will have shown they are better than their competitors at evaluating the risk levels of financial assets. Further, in a free market if ratings agencies wrongly evaluate assets they will lose market share to agencies that were more accurate or to entrepreneurs that see an opportunity to enter the market when competition is weak. Maybe in fantasy land free market but in reality no. As the agencies get whittled down by the "best" ones, more resources will go to them since they are "the best". This means they have more influence. This means they have more power. And you know what more power means right? Comanies are run by people and people get corrupted by power. Else, government would be perfect and we woudln't be having this discussion. In a free market this does not mean they have more influence or power. That only exists when you give government the power to regulate companies. Absent the regulation a company can only gain more profits by doing what its customers want it to do. + Show Spoiler +
The entirety of history disagrees with you. The state can be a weapon used by corporations, it's true, but removal of the state in no way shape or form limits their power, in fact it strengthens it. Corporations will always make do with what they can get their hands on, it takes regulation levied by governments to limit them, and nothing else will ever work. You need to understand that capitalism did not develop out of a vacuum, it developed out of feudalism, a system which was certainly not fair. There was never a point, ever, where the ground was even and fair.
You must have a pretty wacky perception of history to make such an ridiculous statement. The fact that you give no historical examples and make no logical argument as to how corporations gain more power without regulation should open your eyes at least a little bit.
Capitalism is most beneficial for those who have capital, that will always be the case. There is nothing at all to stop corporations with capital from running all over everyone else without government intervention, imagine where we'd be without anti-trust laws. Companies that are rich just get richer, and can practice predatory pricing practices to keep others priced out of the markets. Oligopolies and monopolies can easily engage in price gouging and there's nothing anyone can do about it. Corporations can cut costs left and right, screwing the worker and making conditions unsafe as hell, and also produce highly unsafe products because there's nobody to stop them. Read "The Jungle".
Capitalism is beneficial for people who work harder than other people. Under capitalism the only way to make more money is to work harder then your competitors whether they be other companies or workers. In capitalism you can only gain capital through voluntary transactions that both parties deem mutually beneficial.
We would be much better off without anti-trust laws but again it is your ignorance of history that again leads you to make another absurd statement. Anti-trust laws were implemented in the United States because some companies were not as efficient as other companies and realized they could gain market share by lobbying the government to dissolve competitors that were more efficient than they were. Standard Oil was sued in 1911 after continuously lowering oil prices from 30 cents a gallon in 1869 to 6 cents a gallon at the start of the trial in 1911. Standard Oil was able to achieve substantial market share by being more efficient than their competitors and selling a superior product at a lower cost to consumers. The same was true of American Tobacco which also faced trial in 1911. American Tobacco had been lowering not increasing the price of tobacco as they grew and became more efficient than competitors. The myth that companies will randomly decide to raise prices after they gain market share is a myth not supported in history. What you don't seem to understand is that in a free market it does not matter if a business becomes a monopoly because there is nothing stopping anyone else from entering that market if they can provide better products or lower prices.
Further, if you ever take an economics course you will learn that there exist alternatives to everything. There is no product or service that does not have an alternative. Government regulation is not what stops airline companies from banding together and charging $3000 a ticket. Cars, trains, buses, and boats are all alternatives that compete with airlines. Companies do not have any incentive to produce unsafe products which is why today you will be unable to come up with an example of a product that has gotten more dangerous for the consumer to use over time. It has nothing to do with government regulation and everything to do with companies trying to gain market share by offering better products. Companies that offer unsafe products don't gain market share in a free market the opposite occurs.
The Jungle is a fictional book. It might shock you, but working conditions were not always the same as they are today. In free markets people are free to work in whatever capacity they choose to. People were not forced to work in bad conditions. Working conditions were bad yet people still chose to take these jobs. In fact, some people even risked their lives travelling across the ocean just to have the chance to work in unsafe, and unsanitary working conditions. Working conditions improved not because of government regulations, but because of economic growth. Today, you can work in jobs that have free gyms, comfy chairs, and other types of benefits that the government does not mandate. Companies are always competing against each other to attract better labor than their competitors.
The argument that the consumer will balance this out by only doing business with companies that engage in 'good business practices' is not at all backed by evidence, and relies on a near perfect or perfect symmetry of information that is impossible without forced disclosure. I can list hundreds of examples of horrible business behavior that hasn't been punished by consumer spending due to a lack of information.
Capitalism does not rely on perfect information where are you getting this idea from? Feel free to actually list an example or make a logical argument. Saying that you can does not make it so.
At this point I think you are another SC2superfan101 account.
|
I enjoyed the "in free markets, people are free to work in whatever capacity they choose to." It is as though Charles Dickens never lived, the shirtwaist factory never caught fire, and anti-trust monopoly busting never existed. Oh what a world to live in.
|
On October 12 2013 04:45 farvacola wrote:
I enjoyed the "in free markets, people are free to work in whatever capacity they choose to." It is as though Charles Dickens never lived, the shirtwaist factory never caught fire, and anti-trust monopoly busting never existed. Oh what a world to live in.
If Government did not regulate everything Charles Dickens would have had the freedom not to write the book - don't you get that!?
|
On October 11 2013 15:12 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2013 15:02 Danglars wrote:On October 11 2013 12:35 Whitewing wrote:On October 11 2013 12:23 Alex1Sun wrote:On October 11 2013 00:58 Vegetarian wrote:On October 10 2013 22:54 Alex1Sun wrote:On October 10 2013 21:31 Vegetarian wrote:On October 10 2013 20:40 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 10 2013 19:15 Vegetarian wrote:On October 10 2013 18:42 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
This is just flat-out wrong, as can be directly observed by looking at the current interest rates on U.S. debt (the debt is pretty much higher than it's ever been, yet the interest rates are certainly not).
Also, the long-term solution to reducing debt is a healthy economy, and that doesn't come with cutting spending now. This is a pretty laughable post. I would have thought that in light of the housing bubble, as well as the nasdaq bubble that preceded it, people would recognize that current prices can sometimes be in...what are they called? BUBBLES! It should be pretty evident to anyone with half a clue that interest rates are low because the Federal Reserve is printing money to buy government bonds. They call it quantitative easing and apparently they have fooled some people. In case you still aren't following me, when the federal reserve stops subsidizing interest rates by buying bonds then interest rates will increase. And, as long as the federal reserve is printing money to buy bonds you have an equivalent amount of inflation being produced which acts to distort prices and hinder economic growth by transferring money from savers to debtors. The long-term solution to reducing the debt is pretty simple, you stop spending more money than you take in. I am not sure how your under the delusion that government spending is beneficial to economic growth. Completely wrong. Low interest rates predated QE. Your nonsense argument about Fed keeping rates low is debunked here. I'm not sure how you're under delusion that cutting government spending is beneficial to economic growth, since spending, government or private, creates growth. Less spending means less growth. It never ceases to amaze me how people can be so ignorant of very recent events. Low interest rates did predate "Quantitative Easing" they did not predate a federal reserve subsidized interest rate which is the same exact thing. Since you don't seem to understand the interest rate is determined by something called supply and demand. If the Federal Reserve prints money and buys bonds to keep rates at a certain level we can see that the demand is not real. It is artificial demand that is sustainable only so long as the Fed continues to print money and create inflation. Paul Krugman's article does not debunk anything, linking to it only highlights your lack of understanding of the issue. If you can't formulate a basic argument yourself it should reveal to you your true ignorance of the topic at hand. Further, private and government spending are not equal. There is a reason why the countries that have tried the most centralized economic planning have always experienced the lowest standards of living. Spending is not equal to growth. In order for an economy to grow you need to gain increases in efficiency so that current products or alternatives can be produced with less resources, hence economic growth. This scenario is not compatible with government spending. When the government spends money it first has to take that money from people in the private sector. The government then diverts these resources away from productive individuals that are making a profit by meeting peoples demands in a free market to government monopolies. Monopolies exist when a single entity is the sole provider of a product or service in a given market. Because government sponsored monopolies exist by government decree competition is usually illegal, or unprofitable because of subsidies to the government monopoly. This creates an environment where the government service or product provider has very little incentive to improve or lower costs of their product or service because they are faced with no competition. It should really be obvious by now but if you divert money from people who are forced to compete against each other for market share and transfer it to a government monopoly which has no competition you will achieve a lower standard of living as the resources diverted to government can never be used as efficiently as the resources left in the private sector. I'll comment on the second part only. I feel that there is some truth in it, but only up to a certain point. Fully centralized economic planning is no doubt bad for economic development, as evidenced by the fall of USSR and many other pro-communistic regimes. However median living standards in US are quite subpar in comparison to most socialist/capitalist hybrid economies, such as Canada, Australia and a number of Western and Northern European countries. The problem, as I see it, is that unregulated markets (as well as a markets regulated by business-bribed governments) are prone to business oligopoly or even monopoly/duopoly, which leads to high business profits only for large businesses combined with crappy services, unfair prices and low median wages. Also modern consumers are often swayed by advertisements more than by quality or price. Therefore some control by the government as well as some limited products and services provided directly by the government appear to be the best solution. The main problem with this hybrid socialist/capitalist approach is that for it to be efficient the government should be relatively independent from the big business and no too corrupt. Unfortunately the later is not always the case (hint: Greece). As for the USA, it may well not be ready for more socialism right now, not sure... I agree that living standards are worse in the US than a lot of other seemingly socialist countries. However, I think the USA gets an unfair reputation of being a capitalist economy. Taxes are higher in the USA than in China and most other countries. USA Corporate taxes are some of the highest in the world. The government debt to GDP ratio, if you count unfunded liabilities, is the largest in the world. Regulations in the USA are so burdensome that many companies have been relocating and moving operations overseas. I've never heard of a way that I think regulation could work other than through the invisible hand of the market. The way I see it if the government is granted the power to regulate an industry then overnight one thing will change. The companies in that industry will no longer be competing against each other solely to provide a better product or service at a better value than their competition. Regulation introduces another way for companies to gain market share through lobbying the government to use the regulatory power to their advantage or to the detriment of their competitors. The most heavily regulated industry in the USA is finance and I don't think I am alone in considering it the most corrupt industry in this country, You say that consumers can be gullible and choose products wrongly in an unregulated market. But, government officials are no different except that they are in charge of spending other peoples money and not their own. This is also very subjective. In a free market no one can force you to buy a product or service so if someone chooses to buy a product or service they have made a determination that it is a beneficial transaction for them. Retailers also provide a check on manufacturers. Most stores are not going to want to stock faulty or contaminated products as they know they would eventually lose market share to a store that becomes known for better quality products or one that has a more favorable return policy. Lastly, the market really does self-regulate. GMO products are not labelled by the FDA in the USA, yet there is a private company that certifies products as non gmo and puts their stamp/reputation on products they approve. http://www.nongmoproject.org/ This company and others like consumerlab.com for vitamin supplements, and consumerreports indirectly regulate industries by offering reviews and tests of products. Companies like this would lose market share or go out of business if they approved a product that was later determined to be faulty as they would lose credibility if this occurred. On the other hand if a government regulatory agency like the FDA approves a drug that later turns out be unsafe the FDA does not lose its monopoly. I agree with what you say, and I think myself that too much government control is bad. That is however only one side of the story. I'd like to mention the other side as well. Basically it comes down to the following. Businesses exist to please shareholders. CEOs mostly think about quarterly reports and short-term or sometimes medium-term growth. They are not concerned with gigantic negative externalities [ http://economics.fundamentalfinance.com/negative-externality.php ] and grievous long-term consequences of increasing the corporate stock value at any cost. If a CEO decides to be more socially responsible and take a bigger picture into account, then the company in his/her charge will be quickly outrun by competitors who don't care about the such matters. In the end it all comes to the Tragedy Of The Commons [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons ], which can only be solved by some form of governance or regulation. Now a good government is there not to make record profits at any cost, but to protect and help its citizens and resolve problems such as the Tragedy Of The Commons. Then in order to answer the question whether more government or less government is better or worse in a particular situation, you should first determine the level of government corruption and the extent to which this government is subject to lobbying. There are multiple examples when a big government works wonderfully as well as multiple examples when it fails miserably. Correct, the ideal is a government which regulates and controls markets efficiently while not being subject to the whims of the businesses, but the people. Corporatism is horrendous. You want good regulations, not bloated regulations, and you want corporations to have little to no say, but you want individuals to have a say. Businesses will always make profits. You want stronger anti-trust laws, and fewer benefits tied into businesses but provided by the government. A system where health insurance is provided through businesses will be harder on small business than a single payer system would. The government should focus on forcing information equality as much as possible so consumers can make informed purchases and actually vote with their dollars. The markets function best with a watchful eye but with only truly necessary interventions. It also functions best when the government takes advantage of economies of scale to provide for the citizenry of necessities, preventing the market failures that occur. The markets are amazing for non-essentials, but suffer because the poor often lack the ability to purchase essentials. Frankly, I'm pissed at the democrats in general for not forcing through a single payer system when they had the chance and giving up on it entirely in favor of bipartisanship (the ACA was a republican idea). And then the Republicans decided to define the ACA as a left position to fight for no health care at all. I'd prefer to scrap the whole thing and do a well designed single payer system, but the ACA is better than nothing until we can do that. If Democrats thought they could get enough of their own party on board with single-payer they would. The only problem is some of them don't come from safe districts. This is their step in this direction. Of course, there are some of their followers that will believe anything, particularly that the PPACA was a Republican idea or incorporated such. They are counting on people forgetting what an idiodic plan Hillarycare was back in the day, and the numerous Republican reactions (if you're intent on socialized universal health care, here's viable alternatives). It was a health credit/voucher deal ... the carrot of tax breaks instead of the legal "stick." If we're talking about replacing Medicare and Medicaid with medical insurance policies with tax breaks and vouchers, that would be a Republican idea. The mandate predates any Republican support for cursory resemblances to it, but there are enough misinformed people willing to believe that myth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reformhttp://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/the-irony-of-obamacare-republicans-thought-of-it-first.html/?a=viewallOriginal idea for the ACA came from Republican suggestions in 1993 as a counter to Clinton suggestions/legislation. It's based heavily on the same system Romney implemented and supported here in my home state, and they are very similar. It's based on the notion of personal responsibility, a typically republican concept. So yeah, republican style bill.
Some ideas for the ACA are borrowed from Republican suggestions, but afaik it's not largely a Republican bill.
A new computer analysis counts the GOP policy ideas that overlap with other bills that made it into the law: 3% from the House and 8% from the Senate. In fact, when "mark-up" bills are excluded—basically, amendments and legislative re-writes—11% and 28% of policy ideas from Congressional and Senate Republicans, respectively, align.
Link
Let's also not forget that the MA legislature is firmly controlled by Democrats and that it overrode all eight of the sections that Romney vetoed.
|
On October 12 2013 04:01 NSGrendel wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2013 01:12 Mercy13 wrote:On October 12 2013 00:34 micronesia wrote:
I am supposed to travel soon, paid for by the government. Well that's getting delayed!
My dad does contract work for the government... that's not going so hot right now either.
I know people who have been furloughed. It's affecting some of us more seriously than others... don't only listen to the people who have been fortunate. Yeah, sorry for making light of the situation. I'm aware that it has had some very bad effects for many people. I just thought it was funny that the guy earlier seemed to think we had descended into anarchy so I tried to make it a joke, perhaps in poor taste. No it's cool bro. Republicans aren't really expected to give a shit about anyone else. In fact, earlier this week I remember a Republican senator cracking the exact same joke, so you're in good company.
Lol except they care more then democrats do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
