US Federal Government

[Savy]

I think liberals are in favor of running programs at a loss because they believe that somehow that means the product will be cheaper. They point to examples like the post office which will mail a letter for 30 cents or whatever. In reality of course the product isn't necessarily cheaper at all, and its almost invariably of lower quality than a privately produced counterpart.

The thing is though, that's not the point at all. Let's take your example about the post office.

The idea behind keeping the post office public isn't that the product will be cheaper at all. In fact as you have pointed out I'm fairly sure the product will be more expensive. The reason people want to keep the post office public is because it deliver to places where it makes no sense for a profit ran business to deliver too.

A good example for the UK at the moment is the NHS. There are lots of private companies already involved and becoming more involved in the treatment procedure. There are certain procedures they don't offer, because quite simply they won't make any money from them. That doesn't mean that people don't need them procedures though, however when these companies take away the profitable procedures and run them slightly cheaper, that means that all the money that was going directly to the NHS is now being taken away and they don't have the money to run these non profitable procedures either. Therefore, they just aren't available to people who need them.

You also make out that when something is government ran it's just all laid back and relaxed, just throwing money around for fun. These institutions are constantly streamlining and attempting to become more effective. That isn't just something private companies do.

[Renton]

The thing is though, that's not the point at all. Let's take your example about the post office.

The idea behind keeping the post office public isn't that the product will be cheaper at all. In fact as you have pointed out I'm fairly sure the product will be more expensive. The reason people want to keep the post office public is because it deliver to places where it makes no sense for a profit ran business to deliver too.

I'm not enough of a post office expert to back this up, but if what you say is true it's probably not true in the modern age with modern technology. And I'm having trouble figuring out why a for profit shipping company wouldn't deliver somewhere assuming the price was right. I.E. it might charge a higher price to deliver to Alaska because the costs are simply much greater. And if one for profit company decides to back out of that market, that's simply another signal for more private enterprise to scoop that up.

A good example for the UK at the moment is the NHS. There are lots of private companies already involved and becoming more involved in the treatment procedure. There are certain procedures they don't offer, because quite simply they won't make any money from them. That doesn't mean that people don't need them procedures though, however when these companies take away the profitable procedures and run them slightly cheaper, that means that all the money that was going directly to the NHS is now being taken away and they don't have the money to run these non profitable procedures either. Therefore, they just aren't available to people who need them.

Again, I fail to see why a private hospital would deny giving a procedure in a price-coordinated economy. They don't just say "fuck that I'm not doing that." They adjust the price upward as necessary until it covers their costs. Now in your example they might be refusing to do such procedures because they are coexisting with NHS, which provides such procedures at low cost to all the citizens. But that hardly points out a flaw in the free market, its a flaw in the hybrid state/private healthcare system in the U.K.

You also make out that when something is government ran it's just all laid back and relaxed, just throwing money around for fun. These institutions are constantly streamlining and attempting to become more effective. That isn't just something private companies do.

Governments aren't ineffective at running markets because of laziness or incompetence. They are ineffective because its a relatively small group of people in a position to control a market to which they have no expertise. The best they can do is make decisions that have favorable political consequences, and maybe appoint those who they think are the top experts on a field. It's a very sloppy and ineffective process compared to what goes on in a free market, which has a way of tapping the ingenuity of individuals in a large group (society).

The cooperation of individuals in free trade is far better at determining the relative value of goods and services in the economy, whereas all a government can do is make a rough guess of what something should cost. Prices are in a constant state of fluctuation depending on innumerable factors. No one person or group has the knowledge necessary to determine what they are, yet that's exactly what socialist governments seek to do, with dire economic consequences that can be observed repeatedly throughout history.

[Savy]

I'm not enough of a post office expert to back this up, but if what you say is true it's probably not true in the modern age with modern technology. And I'm having trouble figuring out why a for profit shipping company wouldn't deliver somewhere assuming the price was right. I.E. it might charge a higher price to deliver to Alaska because the costs are simply much greater. And if one for profit company decides to back out of that market, that's simply another signal for more private enterprise to scoop that up.

It's a pretty old argument that isn't really that relevant anymore. Certain parts of Scotland are a complete cunt to get to, but still needed regular postal service. It isn't a one off letter type thing.

Again, I fail to see why a private hospital would deny giving a procedure in a price-coordinated economy. They don't just say "fuck that I'm not doing that." They adjust the price upward as necessary until it covers their costs. Now in your example they might be refusing to do such procedures because they are coexisting with NHS, which provides such procedures at low cost to all the citizens. But that hardly points out a flaw in the free market, its a flaw in the hybrid state/private healthcare system in the U.K.

That's not the case at all. The government funds the majority of procedures that people will need to have done, through the taxes that people pay. The NHS uses this to prop up other areas which aren't profitable. If the private companies were to offer these procedures that I'm talking about, the price would have to be extortionate and therefore unaffordable to the majority of people who need it. Which is why they wouldn't offer it.

Governments aren't ineffective at running markets because of laziness or incompetence. They are ineffective because its a relatively small group of people in a position to control a market to which they have no expertise. The best they can do is make decisions that have favorable political consequences, and maybe appoint those who they think are the top experts on a field. It's a very sloppy and ineffective process compared to what goes on in a free market, which has a way of tapping the ingenuity of individuals in a large group (society).

Yeah, all the people who run organisations like the NHS are completely clueless. They aren't some of the most well educated people in the world. They have absolutely no expertise in the areas that they work in.

[Renton]

If the private companies were to offer these procedures that I'm talking about, the price would have to be extortionate and therefore unaffordable to the majority of people who need it. Which is why they wouldn't offer it.

God there is no extortion, if a procedure is cost prohibitive that's because it takes a lot of scarce resources to provide. The NHS is "extorting" everyone to fund that procedure through taxation. Either way you are paying for it. I'm arguing that through publicly financed healthcare you are paying more for a worse product.

Yeah, all the people who run organisations like the NHS are completely clueless. They aren't some of the most well educated people in the world. They have absolutely no expertise in the areas that they work in.

Not what I said. Not at all. I said that GOVERNMENTS do not have the expertise to run a healthcare industry, and that they certainly do not have the knowledge to set prices for healthcare. No one has that knowledge except for the millions of people in the market who are buying, selling, or working in healthcare.

I'm not saying that the management in the NHS are ignorant or incompetent (reiterating from my first post by the way), I'm saying that the people they are beholden to, government officials, are lacking in such expertise. Politicians are likely to decide on sensitive healthcare issues based on short term political ramifications. And again, even if there was a conscientious politician, he, being an individual human, would never have the infinite knowledge that exists in markets. This is the base problem that affects every socialist regime from the most extreme centrally planned economies like the Soviet Union to the more mild socialist countries in present day Europe.