What's wrong with big government?

[Alferd_Packer]

Just playing the devils advocate here.

What's wrong with big goverment?

More government programs mean more dollars being pumped into the private sector.

I don't think any of us here are in the top 10% of the earnings bracket in this country, so what's wrong with dumping the Reagan/bush tax cuts for this group?

[IchabodPlain]

More government programs mean more dollars being pumped into the private sector.

This is disingenuous. Government doesn't just get it's money out of thin air. The tax dollars used to fund government programs comes directly out of the private sector.

[Fiona]

I don't think there is anything wrong with big government, is there? :confused:

[Tsukasa Buddha]

There is the famous quote that any government that is powerful to give you everything is also powerful enough to take away everything, or something like that.

Beyond catch-phrases, from a New Classical (Also called "Conservative", "Neo-Liberal", "Traditional Liberal") economic view big government interferes with the free market and thus creates inefficiencies so programs designed to help end up being a net negative.

Also, public institutions lack the competition and profit motives, and as such perform worse than the private sector in which competition weeds out the poor performing organizations.

And the current discretionary programs, even though they are much smaller than what other countries have, are projected to eat up the budget, and the ex Comptroller General is saying that we need to drastically cut spending if we don't want to go bankrupt.

Also, more taxes (which are usually progressive) takes away money that could have been invested in the private sector to grow the economy and create new jobs.

Also there is a decrease in innovation because of the lack of profit motive and competition in the public sector.

[Toke]

There is nothing wrong with big goverment.
There are lots of jobs for a goverment to do.
Schools, universities, infrastructure, healthcare, andsoon.

We also need it to hold capitalism on a short leash. (good servant, nasty master)

It works great for us.

[Tony]

Define "big government"

[RandFan]

There is the famous quote that any government that is powerful to give you everything is also powerful enough to take away everything, or something like that.

Beyond catch-phrases, from a New Classical (Also called "Conservative", "Neo-Liberal", "Traditional Liberal") economic view big government interferes with the free market and thus creates inefficiencies so programs designed to help end up being a net negative.

Also, public institutions lack the competition and profit motives, and as such perform worse than the private sector in which competition weeds out the poor performing organizations.

And the current discretionary programs, even though they are much smaller than what other countries have, are projected to eat up the budget, and the ex Comptroller General is saying that we need to drastically cut spending if we don't want to go bankrupt.

Also, more taxes (which are usually progressive) takes away money that could have been invested in the private sector to grow the economy and create new jobs.

Also there is a decrease in innovation because of the lack of profit motive and competition in the public sector.

Dude, pitch perfect.

I like capitalism and I lean libertarian but I'm swayed by the sucess of a number of countries with more socialism than America (see HDI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index)). By most metrics America is not #1. So I can't dismiss socialism. However, there is clearly a limit of diminishing returns. A point where government causes far more problems than is solves for the very reasons Tsukasa lays out.

[RandFan]

There is nothing wrong with big government.

We also need it to hold capitalism on a short leash. (good servant, nasty master) :rolleyes:

Because, as Orwell, Solzhenitsyn, Shcharansky and the citizens of North Korea, victims of Mao's cultural revolution, victims of Stalin's Purges, Poll Pot's killing fields, Tienanmen square will tell you, there's nothing nasty about government as master.

Good one. Real good one.

[Policenaut]

The larger the country the more red tape and bureaucracy. I think the US government has shown that they are inefficient at almost every task given to them. Why give them more responsibility?

[Toke]

Because, as Orwell, Solzhenitsyn, Shcharansky and the citizens of North Korea, victims of Mao's cultural revolution, victims of Stalin's Purges, Poll Pot's killing fields, Tienanmen square will tell you, there's nothing nasty about government as master.

So you don´t distinguis between political and economic system?

Amerikas current problems with real estate, banking system, dollar course, healthcare and oilprice, is a great example of letting buissness run the goverment.

[moon1969]

Ah its wrong to want the world to be more unified. Its the NWO and to the necons and other right wingers a more unified world threatens the american supremacy. Thats what the Bush admin is all about. PNAC says that american supremacy is the best and so does Fox News.

[moon1969]

NWO really isn"t that bad. NWO is an utopistic idea. Even John Lennon imagine? LOL he was apart of the NWO when he wold us to imagine is there is no countries and no religion. All that needs is to people to unite in one world.

[RandFan]

So you don´t distinguis between political and economic system? Did the Soviets? Did Mao? Did Pol Pot?

In any event, the more socialism the more entwined the government is with the economic system. It's not as easy to simply divorce the two. If you want government to regulate the market then you are merging the two. And doing so is to give more power to bureaucrats. And you know what they say about power don't you?

Amerikas [sic] I make a lot of mistake with spelling and grammar so I live in bit of a glass house I'll confess. I'm not correcting you as a personal affront. That said it's "America" (with a "c").

...current problems with real estate, banking system, dollar course, healthcare and oilprice, is a great example of letting buissness run the goverment.

Not sure what one thing has to do with the other. I think you need to think this through a bit more before you respond.

Thanks

[corplinx]

This belongs in the parent forum.

[Alex Libman]

Taxation is theft. Cut. Print. We're done.

[UserGoogol]

Taxation is theft. Cut. Print. We're done.

Yeah, but what's so bad about theft?

[Alex Libman]

All theft is the same - it discourages creation of wealth and encourages mooching off someone else's efforts, greatly reducing the economic well-being of the society.

And by now people should understand the consequences of economic growth or stagnation: it could mean your grand-children's life expectancy could be 150 years or 40 depending on what technological advances are made or regressed.

[dudalb]

Taxation is theft. Cut. Print. We're done.


I guess we don't need a police force or a fire department then,
If you think taxation is theft, wait until the criminals don't have a police force to keep them under control.

[Tony]

Taxation is theft. Cut. Print. We're done.

Not intrinsically. But I will say that our current tax system in the US is pretty damn close.

[VespaGuy]

Taxation is theft. Cut. Print. We're done.

I just love the anti-tax crowd. They look at their paychecks (the ones that have jobs, that is) and look at that gross dollar figure and think "Damn, I'd be living so much better if I got to keep all of that instead of giving so much to the government". But there is a huge flaw in their thinking...

See, if taxes magically went away, then of course their net paycheck would be larger... but so would everyone elses! If they were in the lower-middle class, they'll still be in the lower-middle class. The economy would adjust and they'd be exactly where they are now financially. Do they honestly think they'd somehow be better off?

Want a better life? Get an education and get a better job.

[RandFan]

Want a better life? Get an education and get a better job.

Hmmm...

QOCDoKsXjP0

[Toke]

Did the Soviets? Did Mao? Did Pol Pot?
Cut the strawman:mad:

I live in denmark, we got a progressive income tax from 40-60%, 25% vat, and alot of point taxes.
We are also one of the best countryes to start a buissnes in. (some OECD survey)

Your economic teori would have us broke 50 years ago.:D

I throught the problems with unchecked capitalism running the state would be obvius to americans.

Your large banks are getting lifesupport from the taxpayers due to the subprime mess they have gotten themselfes into.
You do not pay tax for healthcare, you pay alot more to an insurance company, eroupean countries are proof that the the goverment do it cheaper.
Outsourcing have reduced your production, and increased your forein debt. That is part of the low dollar.

I spell better in danish:)

[UserGoogol]

All theft is the same - it discourages creation of wealth and encourages mooching off someone else's efforts, greatly reducing the economic well-being of the society.

And by now people should understand the consequences of economic growth or stagnation: it could mean your grand-children's life expectancy could be 150 years or 40 depending on what technological advances are made or regressed.

No, not all theft is the same, NOTHING is ever all the same in the complicated world we live in. If it is wrong for A to steal from B and for B to steal from A, there is a paradox. Either it is better for A to have the property or B to have the property, which person earned the property is merely one datum, and therefore not conclusive in itself. Therefore, theft is only usually wrong. Exceptions may exist, and in order for theft to be done if and only if it needs to be done, there needs to be some mechanism which takes into account everyone's interests to rationally determine when this is the case. Liberal democracy is an imperfect mechanism, but I think it accomplishes the goal reasonably well, and until we can have superhuman robots with machines reading our brains to determine how actions influence our happiness ruling over us all, it seems like the best system of government practically achievable.

[Beerina]

Just playing the devils advocate here.

What's wrong with big goverment?

More government programs mean more dollars being pumped into the private sector.

Well, the people paying the tax might have preferred something else, like a swimming pool, which hires a lot of laborers to build.


I don't think any of us here are in the top 10% of the earnings bracket in this country, so what's wrong with dumping the Reagan/bush tax cuts for this group?

Every time they buy a yacht, it's hiring some skilled and unskilled workers. Every time they buy a gaudy baroque mansion, it's hiring some skilled and unskilled workers.


Politics is not science. It's the evolution of memes, i.e. campaign promises, which "reproduce" via a successful election. There's only a mildly downward pressure to filter out memes which don't actually work, but a giant pressure to adopt those that "sound good".

That's what's wrong with it. It's all largely a fraudulent fascade that exists in the minds of people, i.e. in their mental models of reality, that support actual, real-world behaviors that are mildly to largely detrimental.



I meant to say, "Ya! Nail those rich bastards!"

[theprestige]

The bigger the government:

- the bigger the inefficiency and waste
- the bigger the opportunity for corruption
- the bigger the necessity for business to manipulate and control government
- the smaller the effect of individual citizens and their votes on the policies of the government

Personally, I'd like to see national government restrict itself to national defense, foreign policy, arbitration of disputes between local governments (both preemptively through the minimum necessary federal legislation, and dynamically through a minimal federal court system), and some investment in nationwide industrial and commerical infrastructure.

The rest I'd like to see left to local governments, with government responsibility and authority increasing the more local it gets. State governments have more power than the national government, county governments have more power than state governments, city governments have more power than county governments, etc.

Your greatest tax burden should be imposed by the government closest to you, which most accurately represents the concerns of your immediate community, and which is most influenced by your activism.

Your local community should be free to establish whatever priorities and values it likes, with minimal interference from the more remote governments. Along with freedom of movement, this would allow different people in different places to experiment with different value systems, economic systems, etc. The best ones would thrive and spread to other communities, and the worst ones would die a natural death instead of being kept alive unnaturally and against the will and power of local communities to change them, at the pleasure of other people, somewhere else, who have no ties to local communities and think they know the One True Way that everybody should live.

TL;DR: What's right with big government?

[RandFan]

Cut the strawman:mad: "Strawman"?

I live in denmark, we got a progressive income tax from 40-60%, 25% vat, and alot of point taxes.

We are also one of the best countryes to start a buissnes in. (some OECD survey) But you are behind America in HDI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index). Odd.

Your economic teori would have us broke 50 years ago.:DYet it propelled America to the most financially successful nation in history and an HDI higher than Denmark. Odd.

I throught the problems with unchecked capitalism running the state would be obvius to americans. Now THAT'S a strawman.

Your large banks are getting lifesupport from the taxpayers due to the subprime mess they have gotten themselfes into.
You do not pay tax for healthcare, you pay alot more to an insurance company, eroupean countries are proof that the the goverment do it cheaper.
Outsourcing have reduced your production, and increased your forein debt. That is part of the low dollar. Simplistic cherry picking. I don't claim that America is number 1 by any metric other than overall financial success. I'm more than willing to agree that other nations including socialists one provide higher HDI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index) and other metrics.

That all said, none of this has any bearing on your silly statement.


I spell better in danish:)
:) Not a problem. I don't know any other language than English (and I'm not sure how good I am with that) so my hats off to you sir, sincerly.

[thesyntaxera]

Taxation is theft. Cut. Print. We're done.

Whatever. You live in a society, right? You drive on roads? You may have children you send to public school? Living in a society means carrying part of the public burden if you are going to use societies benefits. That doesn't even touch on the police that protect your community, or the firemen who put out your fires... among the many other services provided for you at an incredibly low cost.

I can't really conceive of how one could maintain a stable society with out some level of taxation.

[Darat]

Taxation is theft. Cut. Print. We're done.


No one forces you to pay taxes - if you don't want to pay them just leave the nation that charges you taxes for the services it provides.

[Toke]

"Strawman"?
Don´t compare denmark with polpot, stalin or mao.
We are way better at hiding the extermination camps.:D

Besides communist economy don´t work.
You need a mix of free enterprise and state controll.


I throught the problems with unchecked capitalism running the state would be obvius to americans.

Your large banks are getting lifesupport from the taxpayers due to the subprime mess they have gotten themselfes into.
You do not pay tax for healthcare, you pay alot more to an insurance company, eroupean countries are proof that the the goverment do it cheaper.
Outsourcing have reduced your production, and increased your forein debt. That is part of the low dollar.

If you want to claim america as a great example of minimal goverment you will have to accept the downsides as well.

Unchecked capitalism, as in goverment controlled not by the voters, but by campain contributions and the revolving door principle.

Lack of financial controll is good for profit but risky, no problem if you can get the taxpayers to cover.
Health insurance companies have it their way too.
Outsourcing is great for the company, not so good for the country. At least not if you dont have something else for the workforce to do.

Yes, america is on average very rich, but the distribution of wealth is completely at odds with the idea of the caretaker/welfare state.

You end up with every man for himself and the reaper take the last.

Denmark have the world record in taxation (sveden is close), we also have security.
No worries about paying for hospitals or college, unemployment is unpleasant but not a disaster, disability the same.



I have read a liberitarian SF novel, and like the communist manifest it was quite seductive, but not convincing.:)
Do you buy into that?

Do you think of burocracy/whatever as something bad?
I think of having lost my seafarers health certificate the day before i was to go to work.
I called the relevant office, explained my problem, gave my citicent number, confirmed the addres, and had a new in the mailbox the next morning.
"whatever" is great for such stuff.:)

[RandFan]

Don´t compare denmark with polpot, stalin or mao.
We are way better at hiding the extermination camps.:D Wouldn't in a million years. I have an affinity for Denmark I really do.


I have read a liberitarian SF novel, and like the communist manifest it was quite seductive, but not convincing.:)
Do you buy into that?

Do you think of burocracy/whatever as something bad?
I think of having lost my seafarers health certificate the day before i was to go to work.
I called the relevant office, explained my problem, gave my citicent number, confirmed the addres, and had a new in the mailbox the next morning.
"whatever" is great for such stuff.:) Governments worry me. I think we need to have a healthy fear of them. That said I think nations like Canada, France and particularly Scandinavian countries are doing better than America in a number of important areas with a degree of socialism that is greater than America's. I don't dismiss government regulation out of hand. I'm not that much of a libertarian.

[Policenaut]

Government regulation seems to work best with a low population (and possibly small land mass) country. The more people involved the more things can get screwed up and slowed down by bureaucracy, red tape and inefficiency. And yes bureaucracy is something bad.

[Alex Libman]

I just love the anti-tax crowd. They look at their paychecks (the ones that have jobs, that is) and look at that gross dollar figure and think "Damn, I'd be living so much better if I got to keep all of that instead of giving so much to the government".

Milton Friedman has estimated that in a truly free economy, the per-capita GDP would be around $300,000 per year - and that was back when it was like $22,000. But that's not even the point - by working hard and reporting my income I am creating wealth for people that I hate, thus enabling them to do things I cannot tolerate. (Like run part-time child brainwashing and torture prisons they call public schools.)

I would rather live on bread and water and be free than be a millionaire and pay taxes!

Oh, and I do have a job (or ten). I wouldn't be able to donate to worthy causes if I didn't...

[VespaGuy]

Milton Friedman has estimated that in a truly free economy, the per-capita GDP would be around $300,000 per year - and that was back when it was like $22,000. But that's not even the point - by working hard and reporting my income I am creating wealth for people that I hate, thus enabling them to do things I cannot tolerate. (Like run part-time child brainwashing and torture prisons they call public schools.)

Did Mr. Friedman say what a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk would cost would cost if the GDP was $300,000?

ETA: Oh yeah... do you have a source for this little tidbit?

I would rather live on bread and water and be free than be a millionaire and pay taxes!

Heh. Suuuuuure you would. It's easy to say that when you'll never have to make that decision.

Oh, and I do have a job (or ten).

Ten jobs? You're doing it wrong.

[RandFan]

I would rather live on bread and water and be free than be a millionaire and pay taxes! Oh the humanity!

[egslim]

Governments worry me. I think we need to have a healthy fear of them.
Democratic governments are like dogs. If you control and discipline them properly they'll behave, protect and serve you. If you don't they become dangerous.

The free market has a detrimental effect on democracy in that regard. Because it stimulates competition against everyone else it reduces solidarity between those who need to cooperate to control government.

[Fiona]

It seems to me that the opposition between "big government" and "whatever the alternative is imagined to be" is false. In a large group there is always a mechanism for making and imposing rules. The question is what is that mechanism to be and what areas is it to control. Those who oppose formal government are trading open for hidden processes. It is not true that free markets entail individual decisions and competition all working for the greater good: it is profoundly rational for the economically powerful to cooperate in setting prices and raising barriers to new competitors entering the market. And that is what happens. We have laws against the establishment of monopolies but they are not effective because they can only deal with formal arrangements and not with secretive ones. While the law does sometimes uncover and prosecute some such deals there is no reason to believe that most are prevented.

In any group there are those who are powerful and those who are not. The big lie of free marketeers is that the interests of those two groups are identical. They are not. Since each group will pursue its own interests ( as acknowledged by all sides of the debate) those with power will arrange things to suit themselves. This will be to the detriment of the others.

The great advantage of big government in a democracy is that all groups do compete on a more equal basis. Each has one vote and one vote only. It is true that powerful people will have greater access and greater influence: but there are limits to this because politicians must in the end vote and be seen to do so. They cannot ignore other interests entirely. In contrast those who are powerful in an unregulated situation (rich people or military dictators, for example) have no limit on what they can do in the interests of their own group. To that extent the history of civilisation is the history of controlling interest groups, IMO.

Many here say bureaucracy is a bad thing. Well it did not come from nowhere. Most bureaucratic rules arose to address a problem which had arisen They are sometimes piecemeal and cumbersome for that reason, but they did not come about because of a will to obstruction. In the uk it seems to me that after WW2 there arose a system of government which was largely efficient and met the needs it was made to address, albeit there were problems. At the same time there was a private sector which was an unmitigated disaster in that it failed to adapt to changing circumstances and market demands. What is astonishing to me is that somehow this was reframed so that the public sector which was working fairly well was held to be a failure: and the policy solution was to make it copy the private sector which was a massive failure. At the same time the private sector was held to be failing because of the influence on its activities of the public sector which was better. For the last 30 years we have been living in this parallel universe and now most people seem to have forgotten it is insane.

The obvious failure of this system is answered by the totalitarian cry of " we just haven't done enough of it yet" and so progressively we make a bad situation worse because the solution is always to increase market freedom. We have the example before us of America, which is much further down this road than we are: and Scandinavia, which continued on the earlier path when we diverged.

It is clear to me that Scandinavia has the better society: I cannot see how that can be doubted. It is no accident that they, our nearest neighbours, are little reported. Since the tabloid version of economics holds that social democracy is a recipe for poverty and stagnation they cannot really afford to pay too much attention to those countries. We do get big headlines if one of them elects a right wing government - but the fact that those are short-lived does not get the same attention.

All the evidence I have seen suggests the level of prosperity within a society is, above a certain point, less important than equality of income: very unequal societies have more social problems.

If "freedom" is to be the overriding principle then we still have to address who is free to do what: and who is free from what. And we must also address the meaning of those freedoms in practical terms. As someone said: everybody is free to dine at the ritz. Hurrah!

I contend that the free and unregulated market puts children up chimneys and it will never be any different. Big government prevents that. It is a matter of choice whether you think that is a good thing but those are the facts, in my shorthand expression.

To those who say I would rather keep my money and decide how to spend it, I ask this: what freedom do you have to spend your money as you see fit if you are ill? Is there really a choice to be made between getting your kidney dialysis or your pool? Medicine is expensive and even if you can afford it you will not have much left unless you are super rich. For most this is a fantasy choice.

In a properly run society you are free to spend your money as you will (within the law) after you have met your commitments. Those commitments include the provision of universal health care and other things. I cannot see you can do that as an individual: you pay the government or you pay a private company in order to share the costs and benefits. If that sharing is necessary (as it is in all civilised countries) then what we are asked to believe is that it will be cheaper if privately provided, even after profit is built in , because some magic fairy called private enterprise says so: as has been extensively discussed in other threads that is not true: and it is true woo.

[egslim]

At the same time there was a private sector which was an unmitigated disaster in that it failed to adapt to changing circumstances and market demands.
A recurring theme throughout history is that when a country is at its economic peak wealthy individuals invest their money elsewhere, because of higher returns. But the result is that the economy in their own country begins to stagnate. That is contrary to the interests of the vast majority of unwealthy countrymen.

Of course one can argue that it's for the global "greater good", but it means that any country breaking this pattern by keeping investments benefits even more. And that requires government intervention.

[Architect]

Democratic governments are like dogs. If you control and discipline them properly they'll behave, protect and serve you. If you don't they become dangerous.



In all fairness, it's a bit harder to hit them with a rolled up newspaper when they pee on the carpet, but then they are very good at crapping all over the place so maybe it's a good analogy after all........

;)

ps. All things in moderation. Government fine. Waste and red tape a problem.

[Gravy]

Milton Friedman has estimated that in a truly free economy, the per-capita GDP would be around $300,000 per year - and that was back when it was like $22,000.


Of course! That explains why the per-capita GDP of big-government nations such as Luxembourg, Norway, the UK, Denmark, Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, Singapore, Finland, and Iceland is lower than that of so many smaller-government nations.

Oh, wait....

[Darat]

Sudan has a very small government.

[Architect]

In all fairness, Switzerland is a very unique and compact system of Government.

Noorway is a small nation with comparatively big government, and does very well (oil oil oil) whilst Ireland has EU grants. But nevertheless the general point is well made.

Sudan, of course, has several very small governments at any given time.

[Toke]

I heard this interresting idea of how to meassure the functionality of a democracy.

The average voters will vote for getting themselves as much of the wealth and income of the country as possible.
So the more even the distribution of wealth, the more even the distribution of power.

I might not be right, but as a socialist in a country with a reasonable even wealth distribution, this gives me a warm fuzzy feeling.

[Francesca R]

More government programs mean more dollars being pumped into the private sector.No, it means the opposite. So we're off to a shaky start here . . .

[Delvo]

See, if taxes magically went away, then of course their net paycheck would be larger... but so would everyone elses!So what? Person A's conditions getting better or worse does not cause person B's conditions to get better or worse. If I'm B, my own change in wealth (in either direction) is not affected by whether person A's wealth changes (in either direction).

If they were in the lower-middle class, they'll still be in the lower-middle class.Then the entire class would be wealthier, just like your country's lower-middle class is wealthier than the lower-middle class in Mozambique is. It's about the individual's own standard of living being higher, not about trying to make everyone else's lower!

The economy would adjust and they'd be exactly where they are now financially.Not in an absolute sense; they'd have more than before, not the same or less. They'd only be in the same position in the relative, comparative sense. But even thinking that way at all is just purely hostile and sick. There's no benefit in trying to keep others down. If I get more and others around me get more too, their getting more isn't keeping me from getting more or harming me in any other way. It just means there are more other people around that I can buy stuff from, sell stuff to, or trade with, and that their general level of happiness and satisfaction will mean they're less likely to do something harmful (crimes, riots, revolts...).

[Francesca R]

it is profoundly rational for the economically powerful to cooperate in setting prices and raising barriers to new competitors entering the market. And that is what happens. We have laws against the establishment of monopolies but they are not effective because they can only deal with formal arrangements and not with secretive ones. While the law does sometimes uncover and prosecute some such deals there is no reason to believe that most are prevented.I disagree. What examples do you you have of monopoly pricing?

In any group there are those who are powerful and those who are not. The big lie of free marketeers is that the interests of those two groups are identical. They are not. I am mystified as to which free-maketeer ever said that. Who did?

Since each group will pursue its own interests ( as acknowledged by all sides of the debate) those with power will arrange things to suit themselves. This will be to the detriment of the others.It will not always be to the detriment of others. Growth/innovation/progress [take your pick] is a positive-sum game. Rules that shrink the size of the pie that can be baked will reduce the result of the positive sum.

The great advantage of big government in a democracy is that all groups do compete on a more equal basis. Each has one vote and one vote only.I don't think I understand. Groups do not compete equally. Individuals do, but groups behave very differently to individuals.

[Fiona]

@Delvo. Do you think prices would stay the same? Why?

ETA http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1394550.stm

Not monopoly pricing as precisely defined. Active cooperation in price fixing is common

[Francesca R]

Sudan has a very small government.Hmm, where do you get that from?

[Darat]

Hmm, where do you get that from?

Reading about the country over the years.

[Francesca R]

Reading about the country over the years.This source suggests that government consumption is 17% of GDP (2006). Not the highest in the world by any stretch but not very small either.

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/snaama/resultsCountryDLoad.asp?CCode=736&Year=0&SLevel=99&Disp=Million

[Darat]

Out of curiosity what's the spend per person for Sudan?

[Francesca R]

I don't think there is anything wrong with big government, is there? :confused:

Taxation is theft. Cut. Print. We're done.

Government includes compulsion. Compulsion is advantageous in enabling groups of people (societies) to act in their collective best interest, in cases where freedom of individual choice will not allow this to happen. There are many such instances of this.

Simultaneously, the ability to compel allows potential for tyranny. Unchecked government size and control is (arguably) worse than the absence of government.

[Francesca R]

Out of curiosity what's the spend per person for Sudan?I didn't look. "Big government" to me means the share of national income/output which is due to the government. Since Sudan is extremely poor, the nominal amounts will be small compared to any OECD country.

[Francesca R]

In all fairness, Switzerland is a very unique and compact system of Government.Switzerland's government sector is large too, if you include the kantons as well as the federal government (which I think you should).

[Toke]

In any group there are those who are powerful and those who are not. The big lie of free marketeers is that the interests of those two groups are identical. They are not.

I am mystified as to which free-maketeer ever said that. Who did?

It is a common ploy of employers.

"We are on the same team"
Althrough this have been a record year, one part of the company came out with red numbers. We would like all employees to go down 10% to make that part profitable again.
(my company, it was not put quite like that)

[Darat]

I didn't look. "Big government" to me means the share of national income/output which is due to the government.



...snip...[/quote] I think that's a reasonable definition to use but see below of a caveat.



Since Sudan is extremely poor, the nominal amounts will be small compared to any OECD country.

I was just curious because of course a very wealthy country could support a very big government (in terms of public spending) on a substantially smaller take of the share of national income/output compared to a poorer one.

[Francesca R]

It is a common ploy of employers. "We are on the same team"Quite obviously employers (hiring managers) and employees do not have fully aligned interests. If they were, then both sides would be bidding up the compensation award to the employee every year.

[Francesca R]

think that's a reasonable definition to use but see below of a caveat.It is the conventional economic definition as far as I know. There are other measures which attempt to compare the reach of regulations and red-tape etc.

I was just curious because of course a very wealthy country could support a very big government (in terms of public spending) on a substantially smaller take of the share of national income/output compared to a poorer one.Yes it could. Social safety nets require a decent level of national income to begin with. This indicates that policies oriented to the pursuit of economic growth are a good thing.

[Toke]

This indicates that policies oriented to the pursuit of economic growth are a good thing.

Could that for be a goverment financed education system?:)

[Grizzly Bear]

The bigger the government:
- the bigger the inefficiency and waste

I agree, the government still cannot account for 100 million dollars in unused flight tickets between 1997 and 2003. The Pentagon never sought refunds for those fully refundable tickets either.

More on top government waste (http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/bg1840.cfm) for any one who enjoys reading.

If the government doesn't spend my tax dollars in the manner intended, then I'd rather keep my money in the private section where I know it's getting spent and what it's being spent on.


- the bigger the necessity for business to manipulate and control government
I don't agree to the same extent here. What I am more concerned about more than government manipulating business is government monopoly. One of the basis of capitalism is competition which drives prices down to encourage business. When you put a single entity in control on an entire program it removes that choice. Let me clarify as I've had this debate before (mostly for universal healthcare); If I'm not satisfied with the services I receive from my government then who else do I turn to if the government is the only one managing it? If I don't like my cable provider then I take my business to another cable provider that offers better services and less hassle. This is the gist of my view.


For the rest of my concerns, obviously there are places where government is forced to intervene and frankly I'm not experienced enough in politics to go deep into it. My view is if government HAS to intervene in major programs I want it to be relegated to an indirect role, whereby rather than running the program it monitors the progress of the institutions and intervenes only when absolutely necessary to keep it running with reasonable consistency. Here in the states it just doesn't spend efficiently enough fpr me to trust it in critical programs where the free market clearly does a better job at it

For the record, the education funding isn't doing too well, they're making the same mistakes as they do with other programs :P

[Darat]

....snip...

If the government doesn't spend my tax dollars in the manner intended, then I'd rather keep my money in the private section where I know it's getting spent and what it's being spent on.


...snip...

I don't see how you come to this conclusion. Certainly in the UK the breakdown of the government's expenditure is available to an incredibly fine degree (for most things). Private companies just do not do this.

[Thunder]

republicans and conservatives have no problem with big governmant...as long as it supports the issues they care about. like anti-abortion, war, anti-gay rights, and "homeland security".

[volatile]

Government regulation seems to work best with a low population (and possibly small land mass) country. The more people involved the more things can get screwed up and slowed down by bureaucracy, red tape and inefficiency. And yes bureaucracy is something bad.

You know how well China are doing right now? That's because they have an ENORMOUS government. As Naomi Klein pointed out recently, it turns out brutal authoritarian 'communism' is the best delivery vehicle for economic growth...

[volatile]

I agree, the government still cannot account for 100 million dollars in unused flight tickets between 1997 and 2003. The Pentagon never sought refunds for those fully refundable tickets either.

Have you ever worked for a big company? Seen the kind of things its executives put through their expense accounts?

There's not much more wasteful than a huge corporation.

[Francesca R]

You know how well China are doing right now? That's because they have an ENORMOUS government. As Naomi Klein pointed out recently, it turns out brutal authoritarian 'communism' is the best delivery vehicle for economic growth...What?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_leap_forward

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_revolution

[Francesca R]

Have you ever worked for a big company? Seen the kind of things its executives put through their expense accounts?

There's not much more wasteful than a huge corporation.Sounds like a killing to be made simply by starting up an unwasteful one then. And by the way, whose money are they "wasting"?

[volatile]

Sounds like a killing to be made simply by starting up an unwasteful one then. And by the way, whose money are they "wasting"?

You've worked corporate jobs. I'm sure you've seen expense accounts, and the kind of things that get run through them. Or what about enormous salaries and bonuses paid to directors who preside over massive losses?

Trying to pretend, as the poster I was replying to was, that only government bureaucracies are wasteful, or that government bureaucracies are somehow automatically more wasteful than their corporate equivalents is just fantasy of the highest order.

[RandFan]

Democratic governments are like dogs. If you control and discipline them properly they'll behave, protect and serve you. If you don't they become dangerous.

The free market has a detrimental effect on democracy in that regard. Because it stimulates competition against everyone else it reduces solidarity between those who need to cooperate to control government. You'll have to give me more information. I'm not really certain as to what you mean. Thanks.

[volatile]

What?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_leap_forward

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_revolution

I'm not quite sure what your point is.

The article I'm referencing is this one (http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2008/05/chinas-all-seeing-eye), specifically this section:

"Remember how we've always been told that free markets and free people go hand in hand? That was a lie. It turns out that the most efficient delivery system for capitalism is actually a communist-style police state, fortressed with American "homeland security" technologies, pumped up with "war on terror" rhetoric. And the global corporations currently earning superprofits from this social experiment are unlikely to be content if the lucrative new market remains confined to cities such as Shenzhen. Like everything else assembled in China with American parts, Police State 2.0 is ready for export to a neighborhood near you"


The idea that large governments do not produce economic success is false. There are (human) costs, of course, but we're just talking about economics in this thread, right?

[Grizzly Bear]

Have you ever worked for a big company? Seen the kind of things its executives put through their expense accounts?

There's not much more wasteful than a huge corporation.

I just don't see how using the government to bail us out of every major crisis as being that terribly much different. Not that it could be at some point, there are a number of countries that have had some success with big government, however I don't think it would work here

[RandFan]

I heard this interresting idea of how to meassure the functionality of a democracy.

The average voters will vote for getting themselves as much of the wealth and income of the country as possible.

So the more even the distribution of wealth, the more even the distribution of power. I'm libertarian and tend to favor free markets over regulated ones but this is one damn powerful argument.

Good job and thanks.

[volatile]

Not that it could be at some point, there are a number of countries that have had some success with big government, however I don't think it would work here

A similar argument is made by the American anti-'NHS' posters here too - that somehow, systems that are tried and tested and proven elsewhere will never work in America, for some unspecified reason.

Explain to me how a well-run not-for-profit government system will not be cheaper than a well-run corporate system who, by definition, needs to make money? We're talking systems here, not ideologies.

[volatile]

I'm libertarian and tend to favor free markets over regulated ones but this is one damn powerful argument.

Good job and thanks.

You've not heard that before? It's basically the defining argument in favour of socialism! It's what all the other arguments boil down to, essentially.

I don't think you're really a libertarian at all. :) Is it time for a moniker adjustment? Throw away all that silly Objectivism and come over the to the light side!

[Francesca R]

You've worked corporate jobs. I'm sure you've seen expense accounts, and the kind of things that get run through them. Or what about enormous salaries and bonuses paid to directors who preside over massive losses?How is that waste? And please answer whose money is wasted.

Trying to pretend, as the poster I was replying to was, that only government bureaucracies are wasteful, or that government bureaucracies are somehow automatically more wasteful than their corporate equivalents is just fantasy of the highest order.If it is the government wasting money, they are accountable to voters. Companies are not. Your comparison (which you have not effectively made, actually) is irrelevant.

[RandFan]

You know how well China are doing right now? That's because they have an ENORMOUS government. As Naomi Klein pointed out recently, it turns out brutal authoritarian 'communism' is the best delivery vehicle for economic growth... Comparatively to the former Soviet Union they are doing pretty well but not that well. I don't buy Klein's argument at all. The Soviets and Chinese and Cuba and Vietnam and North Korea have all suffered horribly under communism with tens of millions dying from hunger. The west never went begging for wheat from the communists. The reverse is true many times over.

To the extent that China is doing well it is because they allowed unfettered free markets in their south. They have been further allowing more and more free markets to expand northward. That said they still are no rivalry to the US in GDP and they money has not yet moved down to the change the average lives of Chinese enough to the average citizen. China isn't even ranked in the top 30 of HDI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index).

IMO, as wealth increases the Chinese government will find it harder and harder to keep such tight control over their citizens. I expect China to move more and more toward democracy while retaining the ability to have some degree of control over the markets. To make the leap to the big time the government is going to have to give up more and more control to the average person.

[Francesca R]

I'm not quite sure what your point is.To refute yours for the falsehood that it is.

ETA: And I only used well-known examples from the recent history of China itself, in respect of how "brutal authoritarian 'communism' " is dreadful for economic growth. As others have said--bringing in other tyrannical "communist" regimes will not help your argument very much either.

[Grizzly Bear]

A similar argument is made by the American anti-'NHS' posters here too - that somehow, systems that are tried and tested and proven elsewhere will never work in America, for some unspecified reason.

Explain to me how a well-run not-for-profit government system will not be cheaper than a well-run corporate system who, by definition, needs to make money? We're talking systems here, not ideologies.

The only government intervention issue I'm fluent in is the universal healthcare issue, but I'm more opposed to government intervention there because we have an equivalent system already in place for 1/4 of the United States population (senior citizens) under medicade and the system currently in place is facing financial issues as it is. Not because it hasn't been tried or proven to work here based on performance in another country. If the government can't handle an issue like that before expanding it universally I think it should be a dual system that allows for a gradual transition either further into the new policy or that allows the old to be reintroduced if it's performance proves superior.


I've drawn most of my government intervention opposition from that subject... I'd be standing in a spike pit if I tried to argue with you over other implementations of government intervention. I'm not polished enough in politics to explain my position in other areas outside of very broad concerns

[volatile]

How is that waste? And please answer whose money is wasted.

What do you mean "how is that waste"?

You wouldn't agree that a large amount of what corporate executives put on expenses is unnecessary spending by any reasonable expenditure? That the money splurged on luncheons and leather sofas and first-class taxi fares could not be better spent? Or that similar accusations that paying someone bonuses whilst their company is diving into the gutter is not wasteful?

Help me out here - is there anything a company could spend money on that you would consider wasteful?

The example the immediately comes to mind is Red Letter Day, Rachel Elnaugh's company. Whilst never making a profit, she spent thousands on plush offices and other extravagances, eventually going bust. Corporate structures are no bulwark against waste. That's all I'm saying.

If it is the government wasting money, they are accountable to voters. Companies are not.Which is precisely the point I'm making, actually. The first few posts in this thread present small government (and, consequently, more business involvement) as a panacea to eliminating bureaucratic waste. This is manifestly not true.

The inverse proposition, that small government is the only route to economic success, is also falsified by the Chinese example.

From this evidence, I suggest that it is reasonable to conclude that is not the ideology that matters so much as the systematic implementation. And, all things being equal, it seems to me that, often (though not always, of course), a well-run socialised system will necessarily be more effective and cheaper than a similarly well-run private-sector alternative (simply because, in theory at least, a government could run exactly the same systems as a private sector company, but remove the profit margin). It's never that easy in practice, of course - all I wanted to do was point out that "small government" and "free market" and "private sector" is no guarantee of efficiency nor bureaucratic aerodynamism.

ETA: The money a company wastes is the company's, of course, which ultimately comes from its customers.

[RandFan]

You've not heard that before? It's basically the defining argument in favour of socialism! It's what all the other arguments boil down to, essentially.

I don't think you're really a libertarian at all. :) Is it time for a moniker adjustment? Throw away all that silly Objectivism and come over the to the light side!I might have heard something akin to it. I don't remember.

I'm not an objectivist and never have been.
I don't subscribe to any set ideology or philosophy. The closest I come to holding as sacred, a form of government, is representative Democracy (see Natan Sharansky's The Case For Democracy).
I've never claimed to be A [L]ibertarian. I am simply libertarain (No "a" and no capital "L").
I don't presupose that there is any single ideology that is always best for every culture and people. Human behavior and diversity is a bit more complicated than that (see E.O. Wilsons Sociobiology).
Though I find the argument Toke posits compelling I also can't deny the problems that are inherent to socialism and the power of free markets for progress.
Socialism is limited in it's ability to propel economic progress and as control increases the returns diminish.

Thanks.

[volatile]

To refute yours for the falsehood that it is.

ETA: And I only used well-known examples from the recent history of China itself, in respect of how "brutal authoritarian 'communism' " is dreadful for economic growth. As others have said--bringing in other tyrannical "communist" regimes will not help your argument very much either.

Do you dispute the fact that the micro-management run by the big government of China has resulted in extra-ordinary economic growth? That under this biggest of governments, there has been enormous economic success?

The numbers speak for themselves.

[RandFan]

Do you dispute the fact that the micro-management run by the big government of China has resulted in extra-ordinary economic growth? That under this biggest of governments, there has been enormous economic success?Yes. I deny that. Very much so.

[volatile]

Comparatively to the former Soviet Union they are doing pretty well but not that well. I don't buy Klein's argument at all. The Soviets and Chinese and Cuba and Vietnam and North Korea have all suffered horribly under communism with tens of millions dying from hunger. The west never went begging for wheat from the communists. The reverse is true many times over.

Of course. I'm not saying that big government always results in economic success, of course not. Just that the fundamental proposition of the OP - that small government is required for economic growth - is falsified by the recent Chinese example.

Companies are wasteful. Governments are wasteful. Small governments are wasteful. Big governments are wasteful. In other words - the problems, such that they are, are actually independent of the delivery method and the size...

[volatile]

Yes. I deny that. Very much so.

What in the Klein article, specifically, do you disagree with?

[RandFan]

The economic success of China, while impressive is somewhat of an illusion. Keep in mind that China still maintains near absolute control over information and they have a very good propaganda machine with no counter free press and no free speech. Internet sites that are critical to China from within china are blocked.

Don't buy everything you here about China told to you buy the Chinese. Your skeptical radar should be a bit stronger on that front.

That said, here (http://cdn3.libsyn.com/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-05-23.mp3?nvb=20080809160055&nva=20080810160055&t=0a67e2f8352a986dd48c4) is a podcast from a consultant living in China (it's not for a few minutes before the interview). By all means, you should be skeptical of what he says also but it is a counter to the Chinese propaganda and this guy has no motive to lie. He is simply a consultant calling into a skeptical podcast.

I should note that subsequent shows had some criticisms of some of the things this guy reported but it has been accepted by and large IIRC.

http://tiny.cc/pkhro (http://tiny.cc/pkhro)

[Jontg]

Governments don't oppress people; ideologies oppress people. It doesn't matter what form the system takes. A dictatorship can be as good a place to live as a democracy if the dictator in question somehow manages to be a nice guy--and conversely, it doesn't matter how democratic the system is; if the entire thing is corrupt, you're gonna be just as screwed by the popular vote as you'd be by der fuhrer.

[volatile]

The only government intervention issue I'm fluent in is the universal healthcare issue, but I'm more opposed to government intervention there because we have an equivalent system already in place for 1/4 of the United States population (senior citizens) under medicade and the system currently in place is facing financial issues as it is.

It's an issue for a different thread, but do you not think that might be to do with the fact that the system you currently have, rather than with universal healthcare more generally? In fact, coherent cases have been made in other threads as to why the private interests in the American system are at the root of its problems.

I take it you do not deny that the things you decry as "big government" function excellently (and far better than your "small government" solution) in other countries?

I've drawn most of my government intervention opposition from that subject... I'd be standing in a spike pit if I tried to argue with you over other implementations of government intervention. I'm not polished enough in politics to explain my position in other areas outside of very broad concerns

Well, I think your premises are essentially false. You're blaming the problems with Medicaid on the fact that they are government-provided, rather than the fact that they exist in the kind of wasteful, overly-complicated and inequitable hybrid system particular to America. As the experience of other countries shows, nationalised healthcare solutions work - for the purse and the health of the nation. There is no logical reason why such a system would not function equally successfully in the States.

[Grizzly Bear]

Governments don't oppress people; ideologies oppress people. It doesn't matter what form the system takes. A dictatorship can be as good a place to live as a democracy if the dictator in question somehow manages to be a nice guy--and conversely, it doesn't matter how democratic the system is; if the entire thing is corrupt, you're gonna be just as screwed by the popular vote as you'd be by der fuhrer.

The overall view of dictatorship vs democracy depends heavily on personal views. Personally I think Orwell hit the nail on the head in his "Politics and the English language" essay. The words fascism, and democracy have no particular meaning other than fascism defines something undesirable and democracy is used by every form of government as a means of praise.


Do you dispute the fact that the micro-management run by the big government of China has resulted in extra-ordinary economic growth? That under this biggest of governments, there has been enormous economic success?

The numbers speak for themselves.

At the price of peoples liberties perhaps. There seems to be a fine balance between managing an economy through big government and managing through a free market system. Socialized management could work in theory but we're talking about the most ideal circumstances.

I'd be more concerned with whether or not the government I trust with my services will manage the system as needed. In a free market system if a company makes for itself a bad reputation to consumers, they can choose not to take those services in favor of a more effective company that tends to the needs of consumers. IE: If they don't offer the best services for the best prices they lose business. Introduce a monopoly, and that dynamic changes,

[RandFan]

Governments don't oppress people; ideologies oppress people. It doesn't matter what form the system takes. A dictatorship can be as good a place to live as a democracy if the dictator in question somehow manages to be a nice guy--and conversely, it doesn't matter how democratic the system is; if the entire thing is corrupt, you're gonna be just as screwed by the popular vote as you'd be by der fuhrer.But is a dictatorship as likely to be as good a place to live as a democracy? The answer is clearly no. Which is why the founding father of America studied history and came up with a way to give power to average citizens but reign in tyranny of the majority. The decided that representative democracy was best and that power should be divided. When a leader knows he can be booted at any time he is less likely to fall victim of power (power corrupts). Also, his power is limited. Bush wielded a lot of power while in office but the Supreme court and congress told him to pound sand on a number of occasions.

And Bush will be gone without any blood shed or instability.

I'll take representative democracy over dictatorship any day. You?

[CFLarsen]

There are a lot of assumptions and claims flying about, but I have yet to see any definition of what "big" actually means.


When, exactly, does government go from "small" to "big"?

When, in history, has there been a society with "small" government - a society that people would advocate today as a preferred model?

[RandFan]

Companies are wasteful. Governments are wasteful. Small governments are wasteful. Big governments are wasteful. In other words - the problems, such that they are, are actually independent of the delivery method and the size... Huge differences. Companies lay off people when they get bloated and inefficient. Governments keep hiring. Companies change policies when current policies reduce the bottom line. Governments simply raise taxes or borrow money.

[Francesca R]

Do you dispute the fact that the micro-management run by the big government of China has resulted in extra-ordinary economic growth? That under this biggest of governments, there has been enormous economic success?

The numbers speak for themselves.

I dispute (as should be clear from post 64) this:it turns out brutal authoritarian 'communism' is the best delivery vehicle for economic growth.... . . and I have not yet seen you defend it. You have also just switched from a general statement to a specific one. I conclude that your original statement is withdrawn, but it really would be nice if you would say so.

[volatile]

The economic success of China, while impressive is somewhat of an illusion. Keep in mind that China still maintains near absolute control over information and they have a very good propaganda machine with no counter free press and no free speech. Internet sites that are critical to China from within china are blocked.

Don't buy everything you here about China told to you buy the Chinese. Your skeptical radar should be a bit stronger on that front.

That said, here (http://cdn3.libsyn.com/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-05-23.mp3?nvb=20080809160055&nva=20080810160055&t=0a67e2f8352a986dd48c4) is a podcast from a consultant living in China (it's not for a few minutes before the interview). By all means, you should be skeptical of what he says also but it is a counter to the Chinese propaganda and this guy has no motive to lie. He is simply a consultant calling into a skeptical podcast.

I should note that subsequent shows had some criticisms of some of the things this guy reported but it has been accepted by and large IIRC.

http://tiny.cc/pkhro (http://tiny.cc/pkhro)

Hey, I agree with you (and I'm sure Klein would too). The only point that is germane to this discussion is that big government is perfectly capable of providing economic success (which some posters here consider the ne plus ultra of a governmental system). That point alone directly falsifies the arguments of the OP, really.

Now, the Chinese system is horrible. Terrifying. Awful. It is no way to run a country. But their example just serves to illustrate, to my mind anyway, that the issues of economic or other success are actually rather more divorced from the simplistic metric of "governmental / bureaucratic size" than some people would like to believe.

This argument serves as an argument to both the anarcho-capitalism of pure liberarianism and the totalitarianism of the authoritarian-capitalism of the PRC. I favour a balanced, centralist approach, with nationalisation and government intervention where such is merited (for example in postal services, and perhaps in the provision of public transport), but with marketised solutions where appropriate.

It is foolish of any one of us to assume ideological primacy. Corporations are manifestly not beyond waste, and certainly do not always provide the best results for society as a whole. The same is, of course, true of government systems. A balance must be struck.

[RandFan]

Hey, I agree with you (and I'm sure Klein would too). The only point that is germane to this discussion is that big government is perfectly capable of providing economic success (which some posters here consider the ne plus ultra of a governmental system). That point alone directly falsifies the arguments of the OP, really. Capable but the more control the government has beyond some limit the worse things are.

Now, the Chinese system is horrible. Terrifying. Awful. It is no way to run a country. But their example just serves to illustrate, to my mind anyway, that the issues of economic or other success are actually rather more divorced from the simplistic metric of "governmental / bureaucratic size" than some people would like to believe.

This argument serves as an argument to both the anarcho-capitalism of pure liberarianism and the totalitarianism of the authoritarian-capitalism of the PRC. I favour a balanced, centralist approach, with nationalisation and government intervention where such is merited (for example in postal services, and perhaps in the provision of public transport), but with marketised solutions where appropriate.

It is foolish of any one of us to assume ideological primacy. Corporations are manifestly not beyond waste, and certainly do not always provide the best results for society as a whole. The same is, of course, true of government systems. A balance must be struck. I agree with this. The question is how much. We no that a number of countries with more socialism than the US are doing better than the US so it is quite possible that there is more we could do along the socialism line.

[Grizzly Bear]

It's an issue for a different thread, but do you not think that might be to do with the fact that the system you currently have, rather than with universal healthcare more generally? In fact, coherent cases have been made in other threads as to why the private interests in the American system are at the root of its problems.

I take it you do not deny that the things you decry as "big government" function excellently (and far better than your "small government" solution) in other countries?


In certain areas it does, and in others it doesn't. Heck I probably wouldn't be attending college right now if the state didn't provide scholarships that helped pave the way.

In the department of healthcare, many blame problems on on the basis that there are a few lone corporations managing the market, when in reality government regulations prevent many small business from getting a hold of their footing in the health insurance market, which comes out to me as an irony. There are other ideas out there for how to implement universal coverage which aren't as extensively government involved as most of thee discuss I see hand off. Of course as you suggested we can discuss that further in a different thread, I think I've derailed in this direction enough.


Well, I think your premises are essentially false. You're blaming the problems with Medicaid on the fact that they are government-provided, rather than the fact that they exist in the kind of wasteful, overly-complicated and inequitable hybrid system particular to America. As the experience of other countries shows, nationalised healthcare solutions work - for the purse and the health of the nation. There is no logical reason why such a system would not function equally successfully in the States.

Perhaps I come off that way, but in the case of medicade there's much more than simply government intervention involved in those problems. A lot of those deal with finances... I could go into it much more however, I'd have to reread everything I've studied since this is a subject I don't typically discuss off hand

[volatile]

I dispute (as should be clear from post 64) this:. . . and I have not yet seen you defend it. You have also just switched from a general statement to a specific one. I conclude that your original statement is withdrawn, but it really would be nice if you would say so.

Well - China is the fastest growing industrial economy in the world, right? Does this growth have nothing to do with the particular way in which they have run their economy over the past few years?

It certainly seems that Klein is right - capitalism thrives under the big government of China. Ergo, the proposition of many posters here - big governments are obstacles to economic growth - is falsified.

ETA: seems that China have slipped a little and are now only the 15th fastest-growing economy in the world. I think the broad point stands, though.

[Francesca R]

What do you mean "how is that waste"?

You wouldn't agree that a large amount of what corporate executives put on expenses is unnecessary spending by any reasonable expenditure? That the money splurged on luncheons and leather sofas and first-class taxi fares could not be better spent? Or that similar accusations that paying someone bonuses whilst their company is diving into the gutter is not wasteful?Are these things contrary to shareholders interests? Or it it more that you--as an observer--find them somehow distasteful? And you have that backwards. You state it is waste. So you demonstrate that.

Help me out here - is there anything a company could spend money on that you would consider wasteful?Well sure there are but it is a matter for their shareholders to judge.

in theory at least, a government could run exactly the same systems as a private sector company, but remove the profit marginThis is seriously incorrect. :) In what theory does this happen? People (and companies and governments) respond to incentives. What are you going to replace that profit incentive with?

ETA: The money a company wastes is the company's, of course, which ultimately comes from its customers.Sure, we all come from amino acids too. Who the money comes from is not relevant here, whose money it is is what matters.

[volatile]

I agree with this. The question is how much. We no that a number of countries with more socialism than the US are doing better than the US so it is quite possible that there is more we could do along the socialism line.

Yes indeed. That is basically the underlying sentiment of most posts I make on this forum, really.

[Toke]

Sure, we all come from amino acids too. Who the money comes from is not relevant here, whose money it is is what matters.

No, what matters is that private companies are just as wastefull as public ones.
And that privaticing public responsibilities does not magicly make it more effective.

[Francesca R]

Well - China is the fastest growing industrial economy in the world, right? No. And if you think it is, I am not sure you know much about China.

It certainly seems that Klein is right - capitalism thrives under the big government of China. Ergo, the proposition of many posters here - big governments are obstacles to economic growth - is falsified.I don't know who you think made that statement. However, your statement (highlighted in post 64) is wrong.

[volatile]

Are these things contrary to shareholders interests? Or it it more that you--as an observer--find them somehow distasteful? And you have that backwards. You state it is waste. So you demonstrate that.

Well sure there are but it is a matter for their shareholders to judge.

Quite. And government waste is for citizens to judge. The point is, however, than companies can, and are, wasteful. The "free market" is no bulwark to wastefulness, again in staunch contrast to the claims made earlier in this thread.

This is seriously incorrect. :) In what theory does this happen? People (and companies and governments) respond to incentives. What are you going to replace that profit incentive with?Are you saying that those in nationalised industries have no incentives? That's obviously not true. To wit: Schoolteachers, nurses, head teachers, NHS Trust Managers. No profit motive, buckets of (personal and economic) incentives.

Privatisation adds a layer of cost to the enterprise at hand. That seems rather transparent.

[Francesca R]

No, what matters is that private companies are just as wastefull as public ones.Oh? Please show that.

[Toke]

Yes, you need a mix of public and private enterprice.
The exact proportions is something parlaments can discus forever.

[volatile]

I don't know who you think made that statement. However, your statement (highlighted in post 64) is wrong.

Would you be more satisfied with "one of the best"? :rolleyes:

The point still stands. Big government is no obstacle to economic success.

[Toke]

Oh? Please show that.

Did you pay attention at the healtcare bit.:D

[volatile]

Oh? Please show that.

An old article, but one that I found after 30 seconds on Google

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1009/is_v93/ai_4129432

"Green and Berry document an enormous amount of waste, fraud and abuse in the corporate sector costing consumers an estimated $862 billion annually, a figure more than six times the size of the oft-cited Grace Commission estimate of governemnt waste. They note that while government spending has undergone close scrutiny for waste, the much larger corporate sector has received scant attention. One analyst is cited estimating corporate waste commonly at 10 percent of a firm's costs and another estimates that waste may range as high as 30 or 40 percent in some firms."


Now, that sounds high to me. But if you've ever worked in the private sector, Francesca (and I've worked both private and public sector jobs), you'll know that waste, profligacy, bureaucracy and incompetence are not confined to the public sector.

[Francesca R]

The "free market" is no bulwark to wastefulnessOk you have shifted and downgraded your statements again. You said this before:There's not much more wasteful than a huge corporation.

in staunch contrast to the claims made earlier in this thread.You keep saying this. It is your statements (those I have highlighted in the thread) which are/were sensationalist and false and which you have now pulled back from considerably.

[Toke]

So, you do not contest that the magic cure of privatisation is woo.:)

[Francesca R]

Now, that sounds high to me. But if you've ever worked in the private sector, Francesca (and I've worked both private and public sector jobs), you'll know that waste, profligacy, bureaucracy and incompetence are not confined to the public sector.Yes, volatile, waste is not confined to the public sector; and economic activity can sometimes grow fast with "big government" (let's define this as government consumption/investment greater than 25% of GDP). If you had started with such statements then I would not have challenged them . . . :rolleyes:

[volatile]

Ok you have shifted and downgraded your statements again. You said this before:

You keep saying this. It is your statements (those I have highlighted in the thread) which are/were sensationalist and false and which you have now pulled back from considerably.

Those two statement are neither contradictory, nor is one a "step-down" from the other. Huge companies have the capacity to be as wasteful as any government system (and the problems described in the article I linked were more than apparent in the multi-national firms I worked in), and it is a transparent fact that the free-market is no bulwark against waste. I note you've not made any attempt to actually refute these challenges to your position and have instead taken to nitpicking what you perceive as deficits in my rhetoric instead.

My case is, and always has been, that the free-market is rarely the best or only solution to a given problem set; that the sheer size of a bureaucracy (public or private) has little effect on its effectiveness; that public systems are often preferable to private ones given that the profit motive adds an extra layer of cost for no obvious material gain for the end-user; and that dogmatic adherence to either communism (for simplicity's sake, defined as "no free-market") or anarcho-capitalism (defined as "total free-market") is foolhardy and spurious, and that privatisation or "small government" is not a magic bullet to cure all of society's ills.

You seem to hold this belief that unrestrained application of shareholder and / or consumer interest will always produce the most efficient, successful and desirable systematic outcome. I simply dispute that.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

If the government doesn't spend my tax dollars in the manner intended, then I'd rather keep my money in the private section where I know it's getting spent and what it's being spent on.

Er, I'm sorry but I would rather think it is the opposite. In the public sector there is democratic oversight and (at least attempted) transparency for everyone.

Can the same be said for the private sector?

[Francesca R]

I note you've not made any attempt to actually refute these challenges to your position and have instead taken to nitpicking what you perceive as deficits in my rhetoric instead.
See, there's this thing called "woo", AKA: silly, ill-informed, wrong-headed, fact-avoiding luddite beliefs. When I see that on this board, I often expend some effort in calling it out (mostly with respect to economics it must be said). Your highlighted statements were examples of that. I guess that it is worth something if the original proponent revises their position, even if they are loth to admit it :)

You seem to hold this belief that unrestrained application of shareholder and / or consumer interest will always produce the most efficient, successful and desirable systematic outcome.How amusing. Kindly quote me espousing such a belief or retract yourself again.

[volatile]

See, there's this thing called "woo", AKA: silly, ill-informed, wrong-headed, fact-avoiding luddite beliefs.

If that is intended to be a characterisation of my position, then I can only think you're being rude or obtuse, or I'm not being clear enough in expressing my position. If it's the latter, then I apologise. If it's the former (and your continued evasion of any substantive discussion is easing me towards this conclusion), then I'm disappointed. There's no need for rudeness or sarcasm, Francesca. You can do better than sleights and insults.

You again failed to offer any substantive discussion in response to the actual points under discussion, though, which is a shame - you're obviously capable of such. Rather than bickering and sniping, I'd like to get back to the interesting meat of the issue at hand: Do you and I have any disagreement in regards to the core of my position, namely (and I repeat):

the free-market is rarely the best or only solution to a given problem set; that the sheer size of a bureaucracy (public or private) has little effect on its effectiveness; that public systems are often preferable to private ones given that the profit motive adds an extra layer of cost for no obvious material gain for the end-user; and that dogmatic adherence to either communism (for simplicity's sake, defined as "no free-market") or anarcho-capitalism (defined as "total free-market") is foolhardy and spurious, and that privatisation or "small government" is not a magic bullet to cure all of society's ills.

How amusing. Kindly quote me espousing such a belief or retract yourself again.I did say "seem" - your presentations in this thread expressing incredulity at Toke's statements on waste or talking about "incentives", for example, or your posts in the "Corporate Responsibility" thread do seem to belie an underlying ethos that maximising shareholder value is (or will lead to) the most desirable of outcomes.

If that's not the case, then not only am also rather glad to hear it, I wholeheartedly apologise for misunderstanding your position.

For clarity's sake, could you confirm that you do not believe that the maximisation of shareholder value singularly produces the most efficient, successful and desirable (economic and/or social) outcomes?

[IchabodPlain]

Huge companies have the capacity to be as wasteful as any government system (and the problems described in the article I linked were more than apparent in the multi-national firms I worked in), and it is a transparent fact that the free-market is no bulwark against waste.

This is true, however the differences between a private wasteful corporation and a wasteful public program are obvious. Namely, that when a corporation is wasteful they are doing so on their shareholder's dime, not the general populous.


My case is, and always has been, that the free-market is rarely the best or only solution to a given problem set;

The bolded part renders this assertion meaningless. I can propose free tuna-salad sandwiches as an alternative to any problem set; or if I'm feeling less creative I can give you a two word alternative to every problem set you could name: more government.

that the sheer size of a bureaucracy (public or private) has little effect on its effectiveness

I'm going to research this some, but it seems counter-intuitive to me. Maybe it's in what criteria constitutes as 'effective'.

that public systems are often preferable to private ones given that the profit motive adds an extra layer of cost for no obvious material gain for the end-user

The material gain is a better quality product for a lower cost. Profit motive is about incentive for the producer to offer something better than what's currently available, i.e. there's a boatload of money to made on making a better ladder, or a cheaper hammer-drill.


and that dogmatic adherence to either communism (for simplicity's sake, defined as "no free-market") or anarcho-capitalism (defined as "total free-market") is foolhardy and spurious, and that privatisation or "small government" is not a magic bullet to cure all of society's ills.


No argument there.

[Francesca R]

If that is intended to be a characterisation of my position, then I can only think you're being rude or obtuseI'll withdraw that rather OTT characterisation with my apologies for how it sounded; sorry. No I don't think it represents your position. :) I did (and do) think those were poor and incorrect statements (the highlighted ones)

However, regarding the discussion:

the free-market is rarely the best or only solution to a given problem set This is a non-statement really. Nobody can credibly say the reverse. You would not find me saying "No--it is always the best solution" for example.

that the sheer size of a bureaucracy (public or private) has little effect on its effectivenessI am pretty sure I disagree with this, but you would need to define effectiveness first.

that public systems are often preferable to private ones given that the profit motive adds an extra layer of cost for no obvious material gain for the end-user;There is a conceptual misunderstanding here. In a private concern, the "end user" is not the customer or employee but the owner. The value added to customers/employees/suppliers of private concerns (and to the public) are all positive externalities. They are not the over-arching reason why the company exists. Now because the appearance of such externalities is pretty much guaranteed under many circumstances, it makes sense to install profit-seeking concerns into the realm of public goods provision. Generally, the more you need to regulate these, the less of a good "fit" the idea is. But regulated private providers of public goods is still very often superior to direct government provision.

The motivations you mention in respect of individuals in the public sector are exactly that--individual motivations. They do not disappear if a nationalised corporation is made private. It is the case that a nationalised government entity lacks a profit-seeking incentive to succeed and there is nothing that replaces it that was not there anyway.

and that dogmatic adherence to either communism (for simplicity's sake, defined as "no free-market") or anarcho-capitalism (defined as "total free-market") is foolhardy and spuriousThis is another non-statement IMO; it is not credible to say "Dogmatic adherence to communism (anarchy) is great" (even though a few people say it)

and that privatisation or "small government" is not a magic bullet to cure all of society's ills.Again, a non-statement really, not a defining of one's position.

I did say "seem" - your presentations in this thread expressing incredulity at Toke's statements on waste or talking about "incentives", for example, or your posts in the "Corporate Responsibility" thread do seem to belie an underlying ethos that maximising shareholder value is (or will lead to) the most desirable of outcomes. It is not as if I post little on this subject. You should re-visit the thread you mention--my recollection is that you stopped contributing.

For clarity's sake, could you confirm that you do not believe that the maximisation of shareholder value singularly produces the most efficient, successful and desirable (economic and/or social) outcomes?I believe that in most cases it does yes. Not every case.

[volatile]

I'll withdraw that rather OTT characterisation with my apologies for how it sounded; sorry. No I don't think it represents your position. :) I did (and do) think those were poor and incorrect statements (the highlighted ones)

Thank you.

There is a conceptual misunderstanding here. In a private concern, the "end user" is not the customer or employee but the owner. The value added to customers/employees/suppliers of private concerns (and to the public) are all positive externalities. They are not the over-arching reason why the company exists.I think this is at the very heart of our disagreements here (and in the Ethics thread, actually). If a company is charged by the government to provide a service, then the only considerations that should be taken into account is the quality of service provided to the consumers of this service.

There are plenty of examples where privatisation, or PPP, have not resulted in better service for the end-users but have lined the pockets of shareholders - take directory enquiries, for example, or the NHS IT systems fiasco - and I happen to find that rather distasteful.

In a government-run system, the shareholders and the end-users are effectively the same people - the citizens of the country, and thus maximisation of shareholder value has the effect of improving the lot of the consumers - a sensible way to run a country, in fact. As such I'd disagree with this statement:

It is the case that a nationalised government entity lacks a profit-seeking incentive to succeed and there is nothing that replaces it that was not there anyway.

as of course government-run systems can and often are charged with cutting costs in the same way a privately-run company would do to up profits. Given the vicissitudes of the national budget, of course there are efficiency incentives in well-run nationalised systems.


I think you hold the view that maximising profits will pretty much always lead to maximising the quality of the 'product' for the consumer. I happen to disagree, as there seem to be so many examples of this not happening. You only have to open Private Eye every week to see taxpayer's money ending up filling the coffers of private companies for negligible gain to the citizens of this country.

[Francesca R]

I think this is at the very heart of our disagreements here (and in the Ethics thread, actually). If a company is charged by the government to provide a service, then the only considerations that should be taken into account is the quality of service provided to the consumers of this service.This is not factually correct (although you say it is what "should" happen as though you would like to make such concerns non-profit--which sounds like direct public provision to me). The company's mandate is still to earn profit for its owners first and foremost, while secondarily discharging its mandatory service requirement. Otherwise the government can and should (and would) provide that service directly. The reasons why the government often does not choose the latter are that 1) the cost of capital is ex ante lower in the former case, and 2) it is borne voluntarily (not by taxpayers).

There are plenty of examples where privatisation, or PPP, have not resulted in better service for the end-users but have lined the pockets of shareholders - take directory enquiries, for example, or the NHS IT systems fiasco - and I happen to find that rather distasteful.(Note that privatisation is different from PPP) Is your solution direct government provision? Or should the government just get smarter in rigging the incentive rewards? In other words, do you think that public service provision is fundamentally incompatible with profit-seeking?

In a government-run system, the shareholders and the end-users are effectively the same people - the citizens of the country, and thus maximisation of shareholder value has the effect of improving the lot of the consumers - a sensible way to run a country, in fact.This is confuddled. There is no "shareholder value" in the government run case. Only the "consumers' surplus" (difference between the value of the benefit and its cost), which cannot be market-tested and so might not actually even be positive (It can be democratically tested in theory, by residing in an election manifesto or being put to a plebiscite--but this is often impractical and whoever heard of an accurate tax bill projected for a public service, and what recourse is there if the estimate drastically undershoots the outturn?)

Because there is no equivalent shareholder value concept (politicians speak of "stakeholders" but this is not equivalent and not effective in the same way) it is not possible to align at all the interests of consumers and the collective interest of owners in a way that will influence mutually reinforcing behaviour. This is fundamentally because an individual (taxpayer) cannot opt out and sell their stake.

And even if it was the case that everybody's best interest was served if everybody paid the taxes and took what they needed and no more from the service (IE this set of decisions would result in maximum welfare and prosperity) it will not logically happen that way. Ergo--in most cases of service provision I think it is not a sensible way to run a country.

I think you hold the view that maximising profits will pretty much always lead to maximising the quality of the 'product' for the consumer.No, I don't. But I think that taking away the profit motive is in many cases a recipe for greater waste from the system (free-riders extracting more than they could under a market-controlled mechanism).

[balrog666]

But I think that taking away the profit motive is in many cases a recipe for greater waste from the system (free-riders extracting more than they could under a market-controlled mechanism)..


Commies never admit that. ;)

[Skeptic Ginger]

But I think that taking away the profit motive is in many cases a recipe for greater waste from the system (free-riders extracting more than they could under a market-controlled mechanism)..

Commies never admit that. Commies never admit that. ;)I hate to bump this thread considering the discussion seems to have ended, but I was reading Fiona's TLA and got interested in the discussion here. Since I see the same divisions of perspective here as in a couple other threads, I may as well point them out here too.

As a health care professional and after working for 18 years with quite a few very professional fire departments, I can tell you lots of people do a good job because they love their work, they have pride in the outcome, they are rewarded for expertise. Not everyone is motivated by profit.

And the claim that the free market trims all the fat is not supported by the facts. The way I see it, a culture of greed begets greed in the newcomers who join the existing group. That doesn't mean all private enterprises have a culture of greed in the work environment. Not all hospitals and fire departments have a culture of professionalism and excellence in their work either.

But the idea profit is the only motive people have to do a good job, or that everyone would milk the system if they could, is a pretty narrow view of the very broad diversity within the working world both in the private and in the public sectors.


There are many services better provided by one sector or the other. Neither private nor public enterprise is ideal in every setting. One need only look at the population health indicators which show the national health care systems are superior to private systems. Or you can look at the innovation the profit motives result in. But we need both, not one or the other.

[dann]

I throught the problems with unchecked capitalism running the state would be obvius to americans.

Your large banks are getting lifesupport from the taxpayers due to the subprime mess they have gotten themselfes into.

http://www.iht.com/articles/reuters/2008/08/25/business/OUKBS-UK-ROSKILDE.php
Don't forget that Denmark is a capitalist country, too, Toke. This is what happens in any capitalist country, isn't it?
The lack of knowledge about Denmark abroad makes it easy for Danes to idealize conditions in their country, but I wouldn't recommend doing that. Stick to the truth even when you talk about education and the health services. It isn't fun to be poor in Denmark either, and we have plenty of poor people too!
Denmark may be small, but that does not make it idyllic, at home or abroad:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=51894

[INRM]

Well, Tsukasa Buddha got it right "A government that can give you everything can take away everything" and big governments tend to be able to fit that bill better than smaller governments. Also consider that a lot of the worst totalitarian governments were quite large relative to the size of their populations (Red China, former Soviet Union, etc)

Just as a note: While some people would quote Sweden as being a good government, even despite it's relatively large size (to it's population), it has at least since the 1970's engaged in, and has continued to engage in mass surveillance of it's population.


INRM

[Alric]

Government being big or small is another platitude used by the republican party. There is no clear definition but saying "big government" can be easily vilified. Then start parroting that that is what your opponent wants.

I want an effective government of any size.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think you are absolutely right on that Republican platitude charge, Alric. It's so mind boggling that such a platitude continues to lead the right wing masses considering the last 3 decades which have had Republican administrations spending like there is no tomorrow and the 8 years of Clinton actually having a balanced budget.

[Alric]

Yes. Republican government are invariably the most wasteful AND innefective.

[CFLarsen]

Fact: Clinton did not manage to have a surplus during all 8 years in office.

It was only in February 1998, 5 years after he became President, that he could submit the first balanced budget in 30 years.
Source (http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/19980202-14467.html)


Fact: It was not solely due to Clinton that the budget was balanced. The Republican-controlled Congress also was instrumental in securing this.

The Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 led to a push for a balanced budget as part of the Republican Contract with America campaign, continuing deficit reductions by President Clinton consistent with his 1992 campaign promise. Despite political conflicts with President Clinton, the Legislature and the Chief Executive reduced the deficit. Major economic growth and spending controls such as welfare reform, favored by both the President and Congress, allowed for a balanced budget (when the Social Security surplus was counted as revenue) by early in Clinton's second term - considerably earlier than what Clinton's own projections for this had indicated and, afterwards, a surplus which actually allowed the retirement of some government debt.
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_Budget_Amendment#Clinton_and_a_budget_sur plus)

When falsehoods are presented as a scientific argument, we call it pseudo-science.

When falsehoods are presented as a political argument, we call it propaganda.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Larsen, do you see anyone here claiming Clinton had a surplus 8 years running? Also, consider your source. You've linked to an unreferenced Wiki page. Hardly a reliable source given how many people with biased political goals edit Wiki pages.


Look at the graphs on these two sites. Guess which years had Republicans in charge?

Finally in the 1990s, another economic boom enabled four years of budget surpluses. These surpluses temporarily halted the growth of the National Debt. (http://zfacts.com/p/318.html)

National Debt Graph (2007 Budget data) (http://www.kowaldesign.com/budget/)

[CFLarsen]

It always helps stating facts, so that no misunderstandings should occur.

While Wikipedia is dodgy when it comes to presenting opinions on various issues, it is hardly a matter of opinion whether the US Government budget was balanced or not.

If contrary evidence is available that Clinton did in fact have a balanced budget for all 8 years, I would be delighted to see it. As would historians. The history books would have to be rewritten - hardly a minor matter.

If no such evidence can be provided (it being a positive claim), the claim should be retracted.

If the claim isn't retracted, and no evidence is provided, it is a prime example of political propaganda - historical revisionism, on par with what Holocaust deniers are trying to do.

My last name is Larsen.

[Nogbad]

What happened to Alex? Did his head explode when GW nationalised Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

In my view the best occurs when there are checks and balances. Rampant capitalism oppresses as does unchecked government. The European model might be messy, woolly and a little inefficient but it does attempt the John Stuart Mill (or Utilitarian if you prefer) maxim of the greatest good for the greatest number. I, for myself, am a fanatical woolly liberal ;)

[Skeptic Ginger]

What claim are you referring to Claus? Alric and I both merely commented on the Republican platitude claiming they are for smaller government which to them means less spending, and Democrats are for bigger government meaning more spending. Republican voters often continue to vote based on that image despite the fact it is a false image.

[CFLarsen]

Sometimes, repetition of the blindingly clear is needed.

If contrary evidence is available that Clinton did in fact have a balanced budget for all 8 years, I would be delighted to see it. As would historians. The history books would have to be rewritten - hardly a minor matter.

No evidence so far.

[CFLarsen]

Going back to fix an error, without giving any indication what error was fixed, thereby making it look as if the correction was unjustified, is dishonesty in its purest form.

[balrog666]

Larsen, do you see anyone here claiming Clinton had a surplus 8 years running? Also, consider your source. You've linked to an unreferenced Wiki page. Hardly a reliable source given how many people with biased political goals edit Wiki pages.


Look at the graphs on these two sites. Guess which years had Republicans in charge?

Finally in the 1990s, another economic boom enabled four years of budget surpluses. These surpluses temporarily halted the growth of the National Debt. (http://zfacts.com/p/318.html)

National Debt Graph (2007 Budget data) (http://www.kowaldesign.com/budget/)


Perhaps you should look at which years had Democrats controlling the Congress.

And, while the President proposes a budget, Congress has the real budget authority and they are free to ignore the Presidents' proposals. And often do.

[Alric]

Yeah right. The whole Iraq war was a democratic congress idea.

[balrog666]

Yeah right. The whole Iraq war was a democratic congress idea.


Funny how they just keep funding it though. :rolleyes:

[Alric]

No. You don't get to blame even a fraction of the Iraq war disaster on democrats. Republicans created the hype and environment to put the democrats in a position they could not and still can not avoid at their peril.

If democrats were to withdraw funding right now the republican crybabies would start firing the platitudes of unpatriotic and "you don't support our troops".

The deaths and debt that have occurred in the past eight years have been in their entirety a republican creation.

[kallsop]

There is no doubt that Bush/Congress have irresponsibly ballooned the national debt with asinine "compassionate conservatism" aka socialism. The Clinton Golden Years weren't all that though:

United States National Debt

(1938 to Present) (http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm)

Clinton had the debt racing upwards until the Congressional majority changed hands and impeded his spending plans. Then something happened - the republicans got full control in 2000 and forgot what got them there. The vermin certainly deserve a good thrashing in the November election, except for the alternative.

[jsfisher]

No. You don't get to blame even a fraction of the Iraq war disaster on democrats. Republicans created the hype and environment to put the democrats in a position they could not and still can not avoid at their peril.

If democrats were to withdraw funding right now the republican crybabies would start firing the platitudes of unpatriotic and "you don't support our troops".

The deaths and debt that have occurred in the past eight years have been in their entirety a republican creation.


If the incumbents (of either party) are so incapable of doing the right thing, then wouldn't it make more sense to vote for their replacement rather than apologize on their behalf?

[Alric]

I say let's remove the elements that are preventing everyone for doing the right thing.

Or a ban in platitudes. Make it that your point can not be a catchphrase and has to include rational justification.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Going back to fix an error, without giving any indication what error was fixed, thereby making it look as if the correction was unjustified, is dishonesty in its purest form.
You pointed out the error, Claus, and I corrected it. Are you saying I should have begged forgiveness for mistyping your name? Really? :rolleyes:

[Skeptic Ginger]

Perhaps you should look at which years had Democrats controlling the Congress.

And, while the President proposes a budget, Congress has the real budget authority and they are free to ignore the Presidents' proposals. And often do.That argument might have held up had the Republicans not controlled both houses and the Presidency under Bush's first 6 years when the gains from the Clinton years were completely wiped out.

[UserGoogol]

That argument might have held up had the Republicans not controlled both houses and the Presidency under Bush's first 6 years when the gains from the Clinton years were completely wiped out.

Also, Congress was controlled by Democrats most of the time between 1945 to 1980 (although admittedly there were plenty of Conservative Democrats and Liberal Republicans at the time) and the debt as a percentage of GDP dropped reasonably steadily during that period.

[CFLarsen]

Going back to fix an error, without giving any indication what error was fixed, thereby making it look as if the correction was unjustified, is dishonesty in its purest form.

If contrary evidence is available that Clinton did in fact have a balanced budget for all 8 years, I would be delighted to see it. As would historians. The history books would have to be rewritten - hardly a minor matter.

Still no evidence. Should be easy to provide, though.

[Chaos]

Going back to fix an error, without giving any indication what error was fixed, thereby making it look as if the correction was unjustified, is dishonesty in its purest form.

Oh really? You can imagine NOTHING more dishonest? Not even, say, knowingly making a false claim and then claiming to have proven it, and to keep on claiming to have proven it, despite it having been disproven many, many times?

If contrary evidence is available that Clinton did in fact have a balanced budget for all 8 years, I would be delighted to see it. As would historians. The history books would have to be rewritten - hardly a minor matter.

Still no evidence. Should be easy to provide, though.

I don´t think you should act like skeptigirl was the only one guilty of not providing evidence for their claims.

[Alric]

What is the difference in the argument if Clinton had a surplus all 8 years as opposed to some years. The point is that during the Clinton years a surplus was created that was squandered by the incompetence of his successor.

I am an investor and I have seen on a daily basis how the value of the dollar has prevented the economy from growing like it should. The irrational war and tax cut combo the republicans constructed has created so much debt and devalued the dollar greatly.

People fall for it. They don't want to pay a few dollars in taxes every to year and lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in their 401k.

[Francesca R]

As a health care professional and after working for 18 years with quite a few very professional fire departments, I can tell you lots of people do a good job because they love their work, they have pride in the outcome, they are rewarded for expertise. Not everyone is motivated by profit. This is not relevant. Those people's love of their work and pride in the outcome is not removed by the addition of profit. Do you think they are turned into greedy monsters if they are transplanted into private firms, or in other words is it necessary to suppress their dormant desire to pursue wealth to get a decent contribution out of their labour? (I know what that attitude sounds like . . . I hope you do not have it)

And the claim that the free market trims all the fat is not supported by the facts.Who claimed it?

But the idea profit is the only motive people have to do a good job, or that everyone would milk the system if they could, is a pretty narrow view of the very broad diversity within the working world both in the private and in the public sectors.Who expressed this idea?

[Francesca R]

My last name is Larsen.The spelling in the prior post is correct . . . I don't follow ;)

[Francesca R]

It was not solely due to Clinton that the budget was balanced. The Republican-controlled Congress also was instrumental in securing this.Neither of them had a great deal to do with it IMO. It was the economy, rule whatever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_stabilisers

[Francesca R]

I have seen on a daily basis how the value of the dollar has prevented the economy from growing like it should.Please explain what you mean by this. Thanks. (Perhaps in a new thread)

[Darat]

Still too expensive to use as an alternative fuel source.

[Francesca R]

[off-topic]For the record the above post by Darat was originally posted twice. To rectify this I reported the duplicate. So if at some point in the near future there is only one post remaining with the content: "Still too expensive to use as an alternative fuel source", this means that I have the dubious honour of having reported one of Darat's posts and getting upholding mod-action taken against the offending post as a result :) [/OT]

[Francesca R]

Oh and congratulations to Fiona for winning a TLA award; and I wonder if she is able to answer the questions (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3931992#post3931992) I raised about the award-winning post just over a month ago . . . ?

[Mister Agenda]

No. You don't get to blame even a fraction of the Iraq war disaster on democrats. Republicans created the hype and environment to put the democrats in a position they could not and still can not avoid at their peril.

If democrats were to withdraw funding right now the republican crybabies would start firing the platitudes of unpatriotic and "you don't support our troops".

The deaths and debt that have occurred in the past eight years have been in their entirety a republican creation.

And we can't have our Democrats in office targeted with platitudes just to save a few lives now, can we? The Republicans in congress have been (with a few notable exceptions) moronic jerks about the occupation of Iraq, the Democrats in congress (with a few notable exceptions) have been spineless worms. The sad thing is, they are doing more to harm their chances of re-election than if they learned to walk erect. Their low approval rating is BECAUSE they are not doing what the voters elected them to do.

Dems should get a couple of good speech-writers and do the right thing. My prediction is that we will still be occupying Iraq in four years no matter which Party's candidate becomes president.

[Alric]

Please explain what you mean by this. Thanks. (Perhaps in a new thread)

This goes along my previous comment:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/16/dilbert.economy/index.html

A bunch of economists was asked to list the order of importance of issues that should be solved to improve the economy. As you can see tax related issues are near the bottom of the list. By the way, the consensus was that Obama has a better plan to deal with these issues....

71 percent -- Education

67 percent -- Health care

62 percent -- International trade

60 percent -- Energy

58 percent -- Encouraging technology and innovation

58 percent -- Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and homeland security

52 percent -- Mortgage and housing crisis

49 percent -- Social Security

45 percent -- Environmental policy

39 percent -- Reducing the deficit

37 percent -- Immigration

29 percent -- Increasing the proportion of taxes paid by the wealthy

28 percent -- Reducing waste in government

16 percent -- Tax relief for the middle class

15 percent -- Reducing capital gains tax

14 percent -- Extending unemployment insurance

13 percent -- Extending and strengthening the unemployment insurance system

13 percent -- Raising the minimum wage and indexing it to inflation

11 percent -- Reforming bankruptcy laws

9 percent -- Eliminating the estate tax

[Francesca R]

This goes along my previous comment: [ . . . ]I'm not getting how your answer there explains what you mean by this statement:I am an investor and I have seen on a daily basis how the value of the dollar has prevented the economy from growing like it should.How has the value of the dollar prevented the economy from growing like it should?

[Alric]

Effectively whatever spending power individuals or companies may have is reduced. That is inflation and slows the economy down because people tend to spend and invest less.

[Francesca R]

Effectively whatever spending power individuals or companies may have is reduced. That is inflation and slows the economy down because people tend to spend and invest less.Inflation is a transfer of real wealth from those who save to those who borrow. To that extent, taken in isolation, it encourages spending and investing, not the reverse.

Or maybe you are saying that because inflation has reduced the purchasing power of people's savings, they have less to spend or invest if they wanted to?

Are you arguing that the dollar is too low, and that the economy would be performing better if the dollar was somehow engineered higher?

[Alric]

Empirically that seems to be the case. But I don't think you can engineer the value of the dollar.

[Francesca R]

Not sure how a hypothetical (higher dollar) can "empirically" "seem" to cause a stronger economy.

Theoretically, it would set back the recent improvement in your net exports.

[Alric]

Well. Historically the stock market follows the value of the dollar.

[Francesca R]

Well. Historically the stock market follows the value of the dollar.OK never mind . . . Forget I brought it up ;)

[Alric]

Do you disagree with that statement? For me an empirical "is" is more powerful than an "ought".

[Skeptic Ginger]

Still too expensive to use as an alternative fuel source.:D

Pithy, nominated it.

[New Ager]

I just love the anti-tax crowd. They look at their paychecks (the ones that have jobs, that is) and look at that gross dollar figure and think "Damn, I'd be living so much better if I got to keep all of that instead of giving so much to the government". But there is a huge flaw in their thinking...

See, if taxes magically went away then of course their net paycheck would be larger... but so would everyone elses! If they were in the lower-middle class, they'll still be in the lower-middle class.



I don't think most care what class they are in. They just care about having more spending potential.



The economy would adjust and they'd be exactly where they are now financially. Do they honestly think they'd somehow be better off?



So, it's better to let the gov't get the money and not the people??!?



Want a better life? Get an education and get a better job.

The progressive tax system is a disincentive to that. And Obama and liberals always want to go after more of that money.

[New Ager]

I live in denmark, we got a progressive income tax from 40-60%, 25% vat, and alot of point taxes.
We are also one of the best countryes to start a buissnes in. (some OECD survey)



Tax preparation?



Your economic teori would have us broke 50 years ago.:D



Capitalism and low taxes is the best system.



I throught the problems with unchecked capitalism running the state would be obvius to americans.



I thought the problem with socialism would be obvious since it has failed everywhere it's tried.



Your large banks are getting lifesupport from the taxpayers due to the subprime mess they have gotten themselfes into.



Gov't caused this.



You do not pay tax for healthcare...



That's because it's socialism.



you pay alot more to an insurance company, eroupean countries are proof that the the goverment do it cheaper.



Yeah, because people are rushing to get that European healthcare. And gov't does nothing cheaper.

[Earthborn]

You do not pay tax for healthcare,Sorry, toke. That's not true. People in the US pay as much if not more taxes for government healthcare. It's just that this government healthcare doesn't cover everybody.

you pay alot more to an insurance company,That's true; on top of the taxes US citizens have to pay for healthcare, they also need to pay ridiculously high insurance premiums if they want to be covered at all, and they will need to pay prices out of pocket because their insurance doesn't cover the entire costs of most medical procedures.

Oh, and if someone because too much of a financial risk to an insurance company, they can lose their insurance altogether and will have to pay the bizarrely high prices themselves.

eroupean countries are proof that the the goverment do it cheaper.Lots of European countries also have insurance based healtcare financing systems. The difference is that not only is everyone covered, everyone pays. It is mandatory. People can't lose coverage, but they also can't avoid paying into the system, which means that healthcare can be fully financed directly. And that's cheaper than borrowing with interest.

[Francesca R]

The progressive tax system is a disincentive to that.But the better paid job is a more powerful incentive to it.

[Fiona]

I disagree. What examples do you you have of monopoly pricing?

I did not say that. What I said was :

it is profoundly rational for the economically powerful to cooperate in setting prices and raising barriers to new competitors entering the market. And that is what happens. We have laws against the establishment of monopolies but they are not effective because they can only deal with formal arrangements and not with secretive ones. While the law does sometimes uncover and prosecute some such deals there is no reason to believe that most are prevented.

Examples of cooperation in price fixing are not exactly difficult to find. I did give an example of government attempting to address it after your post:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1394550.stm

But if you insist

http://www.pinsentmasons.com/default.aspx?page=1457

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/07/29/labels_charged_with_pricefixing_again/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/us-pricefixing-scandal-leads-marsh-to-rethink-uk-strategy-676736.html

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:vq7S9ClaODsJ:uniset.ca/other/art/cleary_iannorris_extrad.pdf+examples+of+price+fixi ng+uk+and+us&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=uk

and on and on and on.

I am mystified as to which free-maketeer ever said that. Who did?

Toke answered this. I take it you have never heard of ''Trickle down"?

It will not always be to the detriment of others. Growth/innovation/progress [take your pick] is a positive-sum game. Rules that shrink the size of the pie that can be baked will reduce the result of the positive sum.

Oh, I see you did hear of it. Would you like to show this is a positive sum game in light of the increase in poverty in the period when this madness became fashionable? An increase seen both within nations and globally?

http://www.poverty.org.uk/01/index.shtml

http://oberon.sourceoecd.org/vl=2249242/cl=50/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/wppdf?file=5lgsjhvj84wb.pdf

http://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/pubs/workpaps/pdf/2002-10.pdf

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-1464942/Free-markets-and-poverty-since.html

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1796.cfm

I don't think I understand. Groups do not compete equally. Individuals do, but groups behave very differently to individuals.


This has also been answered by Toke.

[Fiona]

This is not relevant. Those people's love of their work and pride in the outcome is not removed by the addition of profit. Do you think they are turned into greedy monsters if they are transplanted into private firms, or in other words is it necessary to suppress their dormant desire to pursue wealth to get a decent contribution out of their labour? (I know what that attitude sounds like . . . I hope you do not have it)

It is relevant in fact. Your claim was that
But I think that taking away the profit motive is in many cases a recipe for greater waste

That is demonstrably untrue in the case of the NHS, which provides universal health care much more cheaply than the private sector does in the us.

In my experience the addition of a profit motive does in the long run remove people's love of and pride in their work. No they do not become greedy monsters: but since it tends to make the interests of the organisation take precedence over the provision of the service it is demoralising. Your view seems to be based on the part I bolded. I have seen you make this claim before. But it is an ideological stance, and I would like to see some evidence in support of it. As there are millions of people who willingly work in sectors where they are guaranteed to be remunerated at a lower rate than they could command: and as many do so for other rewards, which they deem more important that the pursuit of wealth I see absolutely no reason to entertain this. What I have observed is that introducing this essentially political idea tends to remove all the other incentives which made such work worth while. In the absence of those then certainly people focus more on money: and they leave those fields of work. We now have shortages of staff in many such areas and this is not a coincidence

[Francesca R]

I did not say that.OK. Monopolies are really not common. I agree that price-fixing happens.

Toke answered this. I take it you have never heard of ''Trickle down"? What? I asked which "free-marketeer" ever said that "the interests of those two groups [powerful and non powerful] are identical". ??

Oh, I see you did hear of it. Would you like to show this is a positive sum game in light of the increase in poverty in the period when this madness became fashionable? An increase seen both within nations and globally?Why is economic activity a positive-sum gain? Because real wealth and living standards increase when it happens. Can you argue it is a zero-sum or negative-sum game? Your links do not do that. Income gaps widening is consistent with a net increase in prosperity, as has happened.

Before you run away with something here--that does not mean widening income gaps should not be redressed with government-applied redistribution, or that I am opposed to distributional equity. But economic activity is positive sum, overwhelmingly.

This has also been answered by Toke.If you mean this:
It is a common ploy of employers.

"We are on the same team"
Althrough this have been a record year, one part of the company came out with red numbers. We would like all employees to go down 10% to make that part profitable again.
(my company, it was not put quite like that)That's clearly wrong:
Quite obviously employers (hiring managers) and employees do not have fully aligned interests. If they were, then both sides would be bidding up the compensation award to the employee every year.

[Francesca R]

That is demonstrably untrue in the case of the NHS, which provides universal health care much more cheaply than the private sector does in the us. I agree about the NHS. "But I think that taking away the profit motive is in many cases a recipe for greater waste". Actually in most cases. The NHS is a state monopoly, and it has to be state run as a result.

In my experience the addition of a profit motive does in the long run remove people's love of and pride in their work.In mine it doesn't.

No they do not become greedy monsters: but since it tends to make the interests of the organisation take precedence over the provision of the service it is demoralising. Your view seems to be based on the part I bolded. I have seen you make this claim before. But it is an ideological stance, and I would like to see some evidence in support of it.Are you specifically talking about healthcare services or generally? The evidence is pretty massive. The ideological part is that some of the value generated through a profit-motivated enterprise can be used to resource greater advancement in the field in which the people work. Do you really dispute that? Why aren't there many not-for-profit drug companies? If what you said was generally true, then not-for-profit enterprises would be hugely out-competing the for profit ones for staff and talent.

Also, having used private medical care as well as the NHS I really would refute any suggestion that the staff in private facilities are demoralised or appearing to have no pride in their work.

As there are millions of people who willingly work in sectors where they are guaranteed to be remunerated at a lower rate than they could command: and as many do so for other rewards, which they deem more important that the pursuit of wealth I see absolutely no reason to entertain this.As above.

We now have shortages of staff in many such areas and this is not a coincidenceI don't see what you mean by this.

[Francesca R]

What I have observed is that introducing this essentially political idea tends to remove all the other incentives which made such work worth while. In the absence of those then certainly people focus more on money: and they leave those fields of work. We now have shortages of staff in many such areas and this is not a coincidenceI'm interpreting this as:

1--Staff in non-profit providers have a strong motivation to do their job well for non-financial reasons
2--Incentivising those people by means of more money in a profit-seeking provider crowds out their non-financial motivations to work
3--They leave non-profit providers for profit-seeking ones to pursue wealth and non-profit enterprises have a tough time attracting staff.

This does not argue that the motivation to work for non-financial fulfilment is displaced; rather that the addition of higher earning potential and non-financial fulfilment out-competes the incentive of non-financial fulfilment on its own. That is not surprising. It may even cause people to trade out of jobs where job satisfaction is higher (but earning power is lower) into jobs where job-satisfaction is lower (but earning power is higher). Earning power does of course compete with job satisfaction as an incentive if the two cannot be fully aligned. But if they are aligned, I don't agree that the addition of higher earning power depletes the motivation to work. Rather I think and experience the opposite.

But what you seem to be hypothesising in effect is that the same person doing the same hypothetical job in a profit-seeking firm would be less into the actual job and hence less productive.

Perhaps you mean that the environment provided by leadership in profit-seeking concerns is less conducive to productive work (as in "Make money! Sell sell sell!" than it is in a non-profit concern "Do it because it's what we are here to do". Perhaps in some cases, I suspect the opposite again in most cases. I would also expect an aware individual to leave private-sector employment for public sector employment if they perceived this.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I have a different observation regarding health care and wages and I've worked in the American system for >30 years. We have both for profit and non-profit health care facilities.

The majority of people I have worked with in the health care field are satisfied with their jobs. Some of them feel underpaid. Wages are not the primary factor in whether or not people have pride in their work. Wages are not the primary factor in how good people are at their jobs. Not everyone works hard and conscientiously but many people do.

What low wages have impacted over the years, however, has been labor supply. And in case you were unaware of this, private or public, neither one has resulted in wages increasing because other factors have been at play keeping wages low and putting up with labor shortages. Hospitals which set wage standards other health care settings generally follow conspired to contract for the same wages under all the nursing union contracts for years. And nursing wages set the standard for most of the other medical employees as well.

But a couple decades ago, as the level of skill needed to care for patients increased, hospitals found they could not so easily function with understaffed hospitals. For the first time nursing agencies began filling hospital staffing shortages especially in specialty care units. That resulted in competition for nurses for the first time in the US. Agencies began paying nurses more. Nurses began leaving hospital jobs to work for the agencies and the staffing shortages increased.

The result was a sudden steep increase in nursing wages. The hospitals were forced to pay what the market would bear for nursing labor instead of just all agreeing to function with chronic inadequate staffing levels. They also began relying on more nursing aids.

There is still a problem because nursing schools have not completely kept up with demand but the shortages are less now and wages have stabilized.

I assure you none of this had squat to do with whether or not the hospitals were non-profit.