It is literally gibberish. The words and sometimes individual sentences make sense. But when you put them together it's gobbledygook.
The reason for this is because there is no structure to your position or argument. We only know that the thing you're supporting is "better" but we don't know why it's better or even what "better" means. You claim to have a solution but don't even outline what that solution means.
And all those organizations may have some bureaucracy, but they were founded with private capital, are much more transparent, have had more impact and are far more esteemed and with higher approval ratings then any government agency.
And this part's just fanciful nonsense.
None of them provide security, enforce regulations, or provide a safety net for ~310 million people. Not even close. Not even combined. Much less the other six billion people in the world.
I don't understand this statement. I'm speaking facts and can cite the good work done from The giving Pledge and how much more money and the results the private philanthropic organizations have done compared to government welfare.
Another good example of a private organization doing governments job better is TFA, and a lot of charter schools. I think chapter schools are the future of education and just hope the US can get a more German aligned vocational education view.
And all those organizations may have some bureaucracy, but they were founded with private capital, are much more transparent, have had more impact and are far more esteemed and with higher approval ratings then any government agency.
And this part's just fanciful nonsense.
None of them provide security, enforce regulations, or provide a safety net for ~310 million people. Not even close. Not even combined. Much less the other six billion people in the world.
I don't understand this statement. I'm speaking facts and can cite the good work done from The giving Pledge and how much more money and the results the private philanthropic organizations have done compared to government welfare.
Another good example of a private organization doing governments job better is TFA, and a lot of charter schools. I think chapter schools are the future of education and just hope the US can get a more German aligned vocational education view.
About schooling in Germany:
It is about 90% government funded, including Universities. That is probably not a direction you'd want?
There is a lot of critisism in Germany on the vocational training: There is a lot of correlation between parent income and the odds of ending up at a vocational school, and the decision gets made fairly early in development (around 11y old).
And all those organizations may have some bureaucracy, but they were founded with private capital, are much more transparent, have had more impact and are far more esteemed and with higher approval ratings then any government agency.
And this part's just fanciful nonsense.
None of them provide security, enforce regulations, or provide a safety net for ~310 million people. Not even close. Not even combined. Much less the other six billion people in the world.
I don't understand this statement. I'm speaking facts and can cite the good work done from The giving Pledge and how much more money and the results the private philanthropic organizations have done compared to government welfare.
Another good example of a private organization doing governments job better is TFA, and a lot of charter schools. I think chapter schools are the future of education and just hope the US can get a more German aligned vocational education view.
You need to look at the more recent research for both organizations, and I don't understand how this is really relevant to the economic argument I outlined in the OP. There's several links I've provided that would outline these positions in less time than it would take me to compose my own, and would give the gist to you as fast as what I could write. Just read the amazons book description page or watch the 5 minute video, or read the article on cbsnews whichever you prefer. The 60 minutes videos are around 5 minutes each and are on 60 minutes
Basically, the gist of my argument is the inherent hypocrisy in bureaucracy
What specifically is the "inherent hypocrisy"? You have pointed out a lot of things you don't like about government (inefficiencies and insider trading specifically) but have yet to say what is hypocritical about this. Can you explain, without asking me to go to outside sources, what exactly the inherent hypocrisy is?
The US also is the most inefficient regulator of new pharmaceuticals and spends the most per capita for healthcare for a middling ranking internationally, all of which could be fixed with a few simple changes to the forms entitlements take and changes in the overall welfare system.
Yes, the proven fix is single-payer: a single, massive bureaucracy (based on real world examples) that in empiric example after empiric example provides more benefit at less cost than smaller, bureaucracies.
And all those organizations may have some bureaucracy, but they were founded with private capital, are much more transparent, have had more impact and are far more esteemed and with higher approval ratings then any government agency.
This is moving the goalposts. You were asked to provide examples or large organizations without bureaucracy, (apparently) couldn't, and now claims the above. Sorry, how an organization was founded has nothing to do with whether it has an bureaucracy or not right now. The same goes for whether it is more liked than a government organization.
Again, are you able to provide examples of large-to-massive organizations that operate efficiently without bureaucracy? It would strengthen your argument significantly, and I would be very interested because it can literally make my career (as my company has a hard-on for efficiency and eliminating waste).
And, because I would like to see where this conversation goes, I will give you this tip gratis for free: Telling people to go watch a video, listen to a podcast, or "go read up on" a general theory is not a good way to argue your point. All it does is tell people that you don't understand the subject because you are clearly not able to verbalize your own points, all you can do is refer to what other people say.
And all those organizations may have some bureaucracy, but they were founded with private capital, are much more transparent, have had more impact and are far more esteemed and with higher approval ratings then any government agency.
And this part's just fanciful nonsense.
None of them provide security, enforce regulations, or provide a safety net for ~310 million people. Not even close. Not even combined. Much less the other six billion people in the world.
I don't understand this statement. I'm speaking facts and can cite the good work done from The giving Pledge and how much more money and the results the private philanthropic organizations have done compared to government welfare.
Another good example of a private organization doing governments job better is TFA, and a lot of charter schools. I think chapter schools are the future of education and just hope the US can get a more German aligned vocational education view.
You need to look at the more recent research for both organizations, and I don't understand how this is really relevant to the economic argument I outlined in the OP. There's several links I've provided that would outline these positions in less time than it would take me to compose my own, and would give the gist to you as fast as what I could write. Just read the amazons book description page or watch the 5 minute video, or read the article on cbsnews whichever you prefer. The 60 minutes videos are around 5 minutes each and are on 60 minutes
I don't know, you are the one who brought up TFA and charter schools. You clearly thought they were relevant. And once again, you didn't make an argument in the OP. You linked some books and news articles that said 'Politicians are trading on inside information they learn of via their positions', that's not an argument its a statement of something occurring.
Bureaucracies are less corrupt than an arbitrary system, because everyone is treated equally, according to clearly defined rules. People working in positions are well-compensated so that they are less susceptible to bribery. The fact that the rules are clearly defined means anyone can be trained to do their job, and workers will be replaced if they break the rules. Bureaucracies, if well-designed, ARE efficient, because everyone knows what they should be doing at any given time, and they often don't need to refer to their superior except under unusual circumstances.
This is how you make your arguments. You summarize the main ideas. It's a lot more efficient than telling people to go read/watch a thing.
+10
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
MadCaddy, it is not other people's job to do your homework for you. If I see you suggesting one more time that it is, your threadmaking privileges will be suspended indefinitely. Either make your arguments or don't, but I have absolutely zero patience for post after post of "read this guy." Particularly since you don't appear to have read them yourself.
Basically, the gist of my argument is the inherent hypocrisy in bureaucracy
What specifically is the "inherent hypocrisy"? You have pointed out a lot of things you don't like about government (inefficiencies and insider trading specifically) but have yet to say what is hypocritical about this. Can you explain, without asking me to go to outside sources, what exactly the inherent hypocrisy is?
The US also is the most inefficient regulator of new pharmaceuticals and spends the most per capita for healthcare for a middling ranking internationally, all of which could be fixed with a few simple changes to the forms entitlements take and changes in the overall welfare system.
Yes, the proven fix is single-payer: a single, massive bureaucracy (based on real world examples) that in empiric example after empiric example provides more benefit at less cost than smaller, bureaucracies.
And all those organizations may have some bureaucracy, but they were founded with private capital, are much more transparent, have had more impact and are far more esteemed and with higher approval ratings then any government agency.
This is moving the goalposts. You were asked to provide examples or large organizations without bureaucracy, (apparently) couldn't, and now claims the above. Sorry, how an organization was founded has nothing to do with whether it has an bureaucracy or not right now. The same goes for whether it is more liked than a government organization.
Again, are you able to provide examples of large-to-massive organizations that operate efficiently without bureaucracy? It would strengthen your argument significantly, and I would be very interested because it can literally make my career (as my company has a hard-on for efficiency and eliminating waste).
And, because I would like to see where this conversation goes, I will give you this tip gratis for free: Telling people to go watch a video, listen to a podcast, or "go read up on" a general theory is not a good way to argue your point. All it does is tell people that you don't understand the subject because you are clearly not able to verbalize your own points, all you can do is refer to what other people say.
I don't understand how I'm supposed to be telling others to do homework when I posted what I was interested in discussing, with links to several synopsis and less than 5 minute videos that would be easier to convey the point than write out what others have already done. If I were being paid to be here or getting college credits, that'd be something else, but I can and have cited the briefest of sources I could find and was interested in others input.
My OP clearly states my most interested points, and what made me interested in starting this thread (it was this ad free cbs news video http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50157385n that clocks in at 4:59) and I've cited a few other sources just as background that I'll be happy to flesh out and discuss once I get some more time. I just figured offering a few books from amazon that people could peruse or read the synopsis and tell me their this. This was supposed to be a friendly discussion about a story of the day, and they're having a week long expose about similar topics on CBSNews this week, so if we can talk about this I'd be very happy.
As far as bureaucracy, every organization needs some level of management, and I am of the opinion that an organization whose bureaucracy is based on market fundamentals is inherently more efficient. Now, social security and medical care are social issues and have more to do with welfare program development, and that is where a very complicated discussion arises, which is why it has been a problem for 20 years with no real valid way to modify it due to the entitlements and 'paying in' that so many have done; I am not one who thinks it's a viable alternative to privatize social security insurance. In fact, if there's one thing the Great Recession has taught me is that larger scale insurance leverage should be backed by the government ala FDIC due to the fact that if one gets big enough, they'll gamble with the houses money irresponsibly knowing they'll be bailed out (ala AIG).
MadCaddy, your OP does not really explain any of your points. You haven't made anything that I would consider an argument. You jump around subjects very quickly while using lots of buzzwords, and failing to make any clear points. However, I'd really like to know where you got your education, because if it wasn't a public education I'd be really curious about the criteria you used to determine that public education is bad.
Bureaucracies are less corrupt than an arbitrary system, because everyone is treated equally, according to clearly defined rules. People working in positions are well-compensated so that they are less susceptible to bribery. The fact that the rules are clearly defined means anyone can be trained to do their job, and workers will be replaced if they break the rules. Bureaucracies, if well-designed, ARE efficient, because everyone knows what they should be doing at any given time, and they often don't need to refer to their superior except under unusual circumstances.
This is how you make your arguments. You summarize the main ideas. It's a lot more efficient than telling people to go read/watch a thing.
You're citing an article from 1946. Social science has come a long way, and I'm not the sort of libertarian that thinks medical care should be a privatized issue, and I do feel that the State owes it's citizens a guarantee of a fair living. I'm more of the Hayekian sort of libertarian, and even he was considered too socialist to people like Ayn Rand and Friedman.
I also updated the OP with spoilers quotes from the synopsis of Schweizer's books on amazon. They have Q&A's and both videos are around 5 minutes. I'll try and make it better if this thread still is of valid conversation, but I'd be interested in hearing peoples impressions of how novice investors that enter Congress routinely beat the market by more than any index and most hedge funds using their influence and inside information; things that would get a private businessman arrested. Congressmen routinely exit office MUCH better off financially than when they enter.
Another issue as well is the nepotism of the hiring of government interns, which is the most recent news story that made me decide to come back here to post. I'm not looking for this to be adversarial, I'm just trying to have a dialogue.
And all those organizations may have some bureaucracy, but they were founded with private capital, are much more transparent, have had more impact and are far more esteemed and with higher approval ratings then any government agency.
And this part's just fanciful nonsense.
None of them provide security, enforce regulations, or provide a safety net for ~310 million people. Not even close. Not even combined. Much less the other six billion people in the world.
I don't understand this statement. I'm speaking facts and can cite the good work done from The giving Pledge and how much more money and the results the private philanthropic organizations have done compared to government welfare.
Another good example of a private organization doing governments job better is TFA, and a lot of charter schools. I think chapter schools are the future of education and just hope the US can get a more German aligned vocational education view.
You need to look at the more recent research for both organizations, and I don't understand how this is really relevant to the economic argument I outlined in the OP. There's several links I've provided that would outline these positions in less time than it would take me to compose my own, and would give the gist to you as fast as what I could write. Just read the amazons book description page or watch the 5 minute video, or read the article on cbsnews whichever you prefer. The 60 minutes videos are around 5 minutes each and are on 60 minutes
I don't know, you are the one who brought up TFA and charter schools. You clearly thought they were relevant. And once again, you didn't make an argument in the OP. You linked some books and news articles that said 'Politicians are trading on inside information they learn of via their positions', that's not an argument its a statement of something occurring.
I corrected the OP with the synopsis of what they do. I'm sorry for giving a half ass thread to start discussion, I just didn't think watching a 5 minute video was a very high bar, and I was wrong, and will refrain from using them as the thrust of my argument in the future.
It is indeed still absolutely vital for any large organization to have any meaningful effect on the world.
I do not know why you think it is especially compelling.
I think that a bureaucracy not based on market fundamentals or any sorta of goal oriented philosophy, it will create inefficiencies, and more opportunities for honest graft . I mean, I'm not against bureaucracies period, since there are certain things which they are needed, I just believe that without complete transparency and a weak executive, they are more prone to be inefficient than a market driven management structure.
In reference to the comments about Nepotism... This happens in private corporations all the time. In fact, I have a lot of relatives who got their jobs at private corporations because they were related to someone else who worked for that corporation. In fact, several of my relatives have only ever worked for a private corporation owned by my grandfather. Some of them are very productive and good at their jobs, some of them are not. The ones that are not good at their jobs are kept around and given some sort of menial work in hopes that they will develop skills that will allow them to one day truly be independent. Sometimes this works out, and sometimes it does not.
One of these relatives that works for my grandfather was such a trouble maker and such a useless human being that my grandfather now literally pays him not to come into work, because when he did work there, even when he was actually doing work, he cost the company money. If he wasn't a relative he would just be fired, but my grandpa is more or less expected to provide some kind of menial work for any relative who has a spouse and can't find work (if the guy wasn't married with children my grandpa would be free to fire him).
I don't understand how I'm supposed to be telling others to do homework when I posted what I was interested in discussing, with links to several synopsis and less than 5 minute videos that would be easier to convey the point than write out what others have already done. If I were being paid to be here or getting college credits, that'd be something else, but I can and have cited the briefest of sources I could find and was interested in others input.
We are not getting college credit for this either MadCaddy. So yes i would precisely enjoy it if you did not waste my time for which you are not compensating me by telling me to go read books and watch films without even any indication of what those films or books are supposed to elucidate me on.
Here is an example of a good cite:
So i read Keynes's "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money" and he made an interesting point about speculation. He was saying that speculation and wild swings in the market can even be rational. He reasoned "if I believe that the market will fall, even if i believe that the fundamentals of the businesses are strong, then selling the business is a rational response". Since this could actually put businesses out of business he inferred that a rationality assumption on market participants was not enough to ensure against disequilibrium.
The core of the macro argument was simplified and presented by John Hicks in his paper "Mr. Keynes and the Classics: A Suggested Interpretation" which was further expanded by the Mundell Flemming model, a fairly common macroecnomic model that might be taught to an undergraduate course or as a piece of a larger graduate class.
The IS-LM model shows how when you increase the money supply or spend money via the government you can increase total societal output(just like has happened in many governments when they have spent for war causes). It does this by the mechanism of an equilibrium between demand/supply for Bonds and Money.
...and this is why is support massive government spending on everything forever.
This is like 3 paragraphs. Less than you wrote telling us you cannot do our homework for us. Its simple, its fast, it lays out exactly what people are talking about. It lets us know what we're discussing and why we could care.
You're citing an article from 1946. Social science has come a long way, and I'm not the sort of libertarian that thinks medical care should be a privatized issue, and I do feel that the State owes it's citizens a guarantee of a fair living. I'm more of the Hayekian sort of libertarian, and even he was considered too socialist to people like Ayn Rand and Friedman.
You do realize that you cited The Road To Serfdom(1944), without context to what specifically in the book you're talking about right?
Being market oriented does not guarantee efficiencies. See insurance.
Not being market oriented doesn't mean it doesn't have goals. See those charities you linked.
If you just wanted to point out that ba things are bad then, well, yeah no shit.
Insurance just recently entered the age of an open exchange, so too say that insurance is inherently unfeasible privately is a bit of a reach, imho, as I feel that private companies can do guarantees on flights. Diving, automobiles, and chattel property and most real estate.. The issue is when the insurance company begins to resemble a Chaebol more because it's then when "too big too fail" occurs, and we get things like the AIG bailout.
Insurance companies with good management can work, but i do feel their exposure must be regulated and not leveraged to the degree that most jurisdictions currently allow. Geico is an example of a well ran diversified insurance company, but even it originated essentially as a way to insure government employees privately.
And all those organizations may have some bureaucracy, but they were founded with private capital, are much more transparent, have had more impact and are far more esteemed and with higher approval ratings then any government agency.
And this part's just fanciful nonsense.
None of them provide security, enforce regulations, or provide a safety net for ~310 million people. Not even close. Not even combined. Much less the other six billion people in the world.
I don't understand this statement. I'm speaking facts and can cite the good work done from The giving Pledge and how much more money and the results the private philanthropic organizations have done compared to government welfare.
Another good example of a private organization doing governments job better is TFA, and a lot of charter schools. I think chapter schools are the future of education and just hope the US can get a more German aligned vocational education view.
You need to look at the more recent research for both organizations, and I don't understand how this is really relevant to the economic argument I outlined in the OP. There's several links I've provided that would outline these positions in less time than it would take me to compose my own, and would give the gist to you as fast as what I could write. Just read the amazons book description page or watch the 5 minute video, or read the article on cbsnews whichever you prefer. The 60 minutes videos are around 5 minutes each and are on 60 minutes
I don't know, you are the one who brought up TFA and charter schools. You clearly thought they were relevant. And once again, you didn't make an argument in the OP. You linked some books and news articles that said 'Politicians are trading on inside information they learn of via their positions', that's not an argument its a statement of something occurring.
Which is directly covered by the synopsis I have since added, and in the second video clip I linked goes into great detail of that, and let us not forget Jack Abramhoff.
It is indeed still absolutely vital for any large organization to have any meaningful effect on the world.
I do not know why you think it is especially compelling.
I think that a bureaucracy not based on market fundamentals or any sorta of goal oriented philosophy, it will create inefficiencies, and more opportunities for honest graft . I mean, I'm not against bureaucracies period, since there are certain things which they are needed, I just believe that without complete transparency and a weak executive, they are more prone to be inefficient than a market driven management structure.
While you may believe that to be true, that doesn't make it so - and in fact, there's quite a bit of empirical evidence that shows that the opposite is true (one of the best examples is Medicare vs. privately run healthcare.) Spouting dogma won't get you very far in this forum, because if there's one thing we enjoy, it's shredding dogma to bits.
Also, "efficiency" is a dangerous word to throw around. There was a discussion earlier in [chat] about creating a digital ID card system to make carrying ID more convenient and efficient - and there was a surprising number of forumers from all parts of the spectrum arguing against the concept. Efficiency for the sake of efficiency is a trap.
Being market oriented does not guarantee efficiencies. See insurance.
Not being market oriented doesn't mean it doesn't have goals. See those charities you linked.
If you just wanted to point out that ba things are bad then, well, yeah no shit.
Insurance just recently entered the age of an open exchange, so too say that insurance is inherently unfeasible privately is a bit of a reach, imho, as I feel that private companies can do guarantees on flights. Diving, automobiles, and chattel property and most real estate.. The issue is when the insurance company begins to resemble a Chaebol more because it's then when "too big too fail" occurs, and we get things like the AIG bailout.
Insurance entered open exchanges kicking and screaming, lobbying against, and through a massive new set of government infrastructure to ensure the exchanges work and to correct a bunch of externalities that would prevent people getting coverage (individual mandate + no precondition exclusions + being able to buy as a notional "block").
Totally private health insurance does not work absent a ton of bureaucracy to make sure it does, and "too big to fail" is a situation that arises absent government regulation, not because of it since the natural state of every company is to expand to a monopoly.
I don't understand how I'm supposed to be telling others to do homework when I posted what I was interested in discussing, with links to several synopsis and less than 5 minute videos that would be easier to convey the point than write out what others have already done. If I were being paid to be here or getting college credits, that'd be something else, but I can and have cited the briefest of sources I could find and was interested in others input.
We are not getting college credit for this either MadCaddy. So yes i would precisely enjoy it if you did not waste my time for which you are not compensating me by telling me to go read books and watch films without even any indication of what those films or books are supposed to elucidate me on.
Here is an example of a good cite:
So i read Keynes's "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money" and he made an interesting point about speculation. He was saying that speculation and wild swings in the market can even be rational. He reasoned "if I believe that the market will fall, even if i believe that the fundamentals of the businesses are strong, then selling the business is a rational response". Since this could actually put businesses out of business he inferred that a rationality assumption on market participants was not enough to ensure against disequilibrium.
The core of the macro argument was simplified and presented by John Hicks in his paper "Mr. Keynes and the Classics: A Suggested Interpretation" which was further expanded by the Mundell Flemming model, a fairly common macroecnomic model that might be taught to an undergraduate course or as a piece of a larger graduate class.
The IS-LM model shows how when you increase the money supply or spend money via the government you can increase total societal output(just like has happened in many governments when they have spent for war causes). It does this by the mechanism of an equilibrium between demand/supply for Bonds and Money.
...and this is why is support massive government spending on everything forever.
This is like 3 paragraphs. Less than you wrote telling us you cannot do our homework for us. Its simple, its fast, it lays out exactly what people are talking about. It lets us know what we're discussing and why we could care.
You're citing an article from 1946. Social science has come a long way, and I'm not the sort of libertarian that thinks medical care should be a privatized issue, and I do feel that the State owes it's citizens a guarantee of a fair living. I'm more of the Hayekian sort of libertarian, and even he was considered too socialist to people like Ayn Rand and Friedman.
You do realize that you cited The Road To Serfdom(1944), without context to what specifically in the book you're talking about right?
Hayek made these statements before the Cold War, which is important to remember:
But when economic power is centralized as an instrument of political power it creates a degree of dependence scarcely distinguishable from slavery. It has been well said that, in a country where the sole employer is the state, opposition means death by slow starvation.
The Road to Serfdom, "Planning and Power."[7]
And it was these reasons (and the Soviet Union insisting on subsidizing gas while letting people starve! and keep ramping up military expenditures to try and grow their economy the proven Austrian/German way of military dominance).
I really do wish Keynes had lived to have some debate with Hayek after the war, and it would've been interesting to see how different reconstruction could've been. I really wish Breton-Woods would've accepted the bancor so you and I agree on a lot of the broad strokes; it's just that I believe there is a point of diminishing returns.
I agree that governments can operate on a deficit, due to their proposed gain of demand and consumption, and while I'm not sure of Keynes theory that the government could just pay people to dig holes and refill them to stimulate the economy.
And the quote from the Road to Serfdom that some people call Hayek socialist over (but which I agree with as well) was:
"There is no reason why in a free society government should not assure to all, protection against severe deprivation in the form of an assured minimum income, or a floor below which nobody need descend. To enter into such an insurance against extreme misfortune may well be in the interest of all; or it may be felt to be a clear moral duty of all to assist, within the organised community, those who cannot help themselves. So long as such a uniform minimum income is provided outside the market to all those who, for any reason, are unable to earn in the market an adequate maintenance, this need not lead to a restriction of freedom, or conflict with the Rule of Law."[80]
Being market oriented does not guarantee efficiencies. See insurance.
Not being market oriented doesn't mean it doesn't have goals. See those charities you linked.
If you just wanted to point out that ba things are bad then, well, yeah no shit.
Insurance just recently entered the age of an open exchange, so too say that insurance is inherently unfeasible privately is a bit of a reach, imho, as I feel that private companies can do guarantees on flights. Diving, automobiles, and chattel property and most real estate.. The issue is when the insurance company begins to resemble a Chaebol more because it's then when "too big too fail" occurs, and we get things like the AIG bailout.
Insurance entered open exchanges kicking and screaming, lobbying against, and through a massive new set of government infrastructure to ensure the exchanges work and to correct a bunch of externalities that would prevent people getting coverage (individual mandate + no precondition exclusions + being able to buy as a notional "block").
Totally private health insurance does not work absent a ton of bureaucracy to make sure it does, and "too big to fail" is a situation that arises absent government regulation, not because of it since the natural state of every company is to expand to a monopoly.
If insurance isn't in an exchange, or if there's no way to compare like to like and make any sort of informed decision, it's not an open market. The insurance markets need to be in exchanges, and they need government regulation to limit their liability, ensure that they aren't gouging profits and to ensure the exchanges are operating fairly; essentially taking the role of exchequer or a clearinghouse. I am pro the Affordable care Act, although
I would've preferred single payer, as I believe most mandatory healthcare needs are impossible to have fair negotiations due to the fact that if you're told you need your appendix out, or it's going to burst, you're not exactly going to be able to go down the street, or call around to comparison shop.
It is indeed still absolutely vital for any large organization to have any meaningful effect on the world.
I do not know why you think it is especially compelling.
I think that a bureaucracy not based on market fundamentals or any sorta of goal oriented philosophy, it will create inefficiencies, and more opportunities for honest graft . I mean, I'm not against bureaucracies period, since there are certain things which they are needed, I just believe that without complete transparency and a weak executive, they are more prone to be inefficient than a market driven management structure.
While you may believe that to be true, that doesn't make it so - and in fact, there's quite a bit of empirical evidence that shows that the opposite is true (one of the best examples is Medicare vs. privately run healthcare.) Spouting dogma won't get you very far in this forum, because if there's one thing we enjoy, it's shredding dogma to bits.
Also, "efficiency" is a dangerous word to throw around. There was a discussion earlier in [chat] about creating a digital ID card system to make carrying ID more convenient and efficient - and there was a surprising number of forumers from all parts of the spectrum arguing against the concept. Efficiency for the sake of efficiency is a trap.
Privately ran healthcare was never completely private and was impossible to comparison shop, so wasn't in a true open market. I understand how bad private health insurance was pre-Affordable Care Act, and what a cancer they were to the American Healthcare system.
I agree that governments can operate on a deficit, due to their proposed gain of demand and consumption, and while I'm not sure of Keynes theory that the government could just pay people to dig holes and refill them to stimulate the economy.
Re: the non quoted part.
I don't understand what you're replying to with Hayek quotes. The quote is not the end or the beginning of the argument it is merely value added to an idea or maybe a source for an idea.
I have always found that going over an argument formally has helped me structure it better and refine my argument. This works for academic writing and casual writing like this forum.
List out the things your assuming from whole cloth as many as you can think of
Write down the conclusion you wish to reach in as detailed a point as you can get.
Using only logic get from your assumptions to the conclusion. If you can't make it then change the conclusion or figure out why you can't make it.
Then look at the whole thing and write it into a paragraph or three hundred.
Basically, the gist of my argument is the inherent hypocrisy in bureaucracy
What specifically is the "inherent hypocrisy"? You have pointed out a lot of things you don't like about government (inefficiencies and insider trading specifically) but have yet to say what is hypocritical about this. Can you explain, without asking me to go to outside sources, what exactly the inherent hypocrisy is?
The US also is the most inefficient regulator of new pharmaceuticals and spends the most per capita for healthcare for a middling ranking internationally, all of which could be fixed with a few simple changes to the forms entitlements take and changes in the overall welfare system.
Yes, the proven fix is single-payer: a single, massive bureaucracy (based on real world examples) that in empiric example after empiric example provides more benefit at less cost than smaller, bureaucracies.
And all those organizations may have some bureaucracy, but they were founded with private capital, are much more transparent, have had more impact and are far more esteemed and with higher approval ratings then any government agency.
This is moving the goalposts. You were asked to provide examples or large organizations without bureaucracy, (apparently) couldn't, and now claims the above. Sorry, how an organization was founded has nothing to do with whether it has an bureaucracy or not right now. The same goes for whether it is more liked than a government organization.
Again, are you able to provide examples of large-to-massive organizations that operate efficiently without bureaucracy? It would strengthen your argument significantly, and I would be very interested because it can literally make my career (as my company has a hard-on for efficiency and eliminating waste).
And, because I would like to see where this conversation goes, I will give you this tip gratis for free: Telling people to go watch a video, listen to a podcast, or "go read up on" a general theory is not a good way to argue your point. All it does is tell people that you don't understand the subject because you are clearly not able to verbalize your own points, all you can do is refer to what other people say.
I don't understand how I'm supposed to be telling others to do homework when I posted what I was interested in discussing, with links to several synopsis and less than 5 minute videos that would be easier to convey the point than write out what others have already done. If I were being paid to be here or getting college credits, that'd be something else, but I can and have cited the briefest of sources I could find and was interested in others input.
My OP clearly states my most interested points, and what made me interested in starting this thread (it was this ad free cbs news video http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50157385n that clocks in at 4:59) and I've cited a few other sources just as background that I'll be happy to flesh out and discuss once I get some more time. I just figured offering a few books from amazon that people could peruse or read the synopsis and tell me their this. This was supposed to be a friendly discussion about a story of the day, and they're having a week long expose about similar topics on CBSNews this week, so if we can talk about this I'd be very happy.
As far as bureaucracy, every organization needs some level of management, and I am of the opinion that an organization whose bureaucracy is based on market fundamentals is inherently more efficient. Now, social security and medical care are social issues and have more to do with welfare program development, and that is where a very complicated discussion arises, which is why it has been a problem for 20 years with no real valid way to modify it due to the entitlements and 'paying in' that so many have done; I am not one who thinks it's a viable alternative to privatize social security insurance. In fact, if there's one thing the Great Recession has taught me is that larger scale insurance leverage should be backed by the government ala FDIC due to the fact that if one gets big enough, they'll gamble with the houses money irresponsibly knowing they'll be bailed out (ala AIG).
Snarky reply: Buddy, everything you say is flat out wrong. https://www.google.com/. Just go search for a few minutes and you will see. I'm not getting paid for this so I'm not interested in providing more than the briefest of sources.
Serious reply:
Comparing health insurance to any other insurance is stupid. There is a major difference between health insurance and any other insurance (quick question: how many cars do you expect to drive throughout your life? How many bodies do you expect to live in). health insurance operates in an environment where market forces do not make sense, which is why systems where they have been taken out of the health care equation consistently prove to be less costly and more efficient (on a social scale).
I am still interested in hearing about the "inherent" hypocrisy. You finally provided a quote about hypocritical liberals, but nothing about that is showing anything inherent. In fact, there is little hypocritical about the liberals you posted, as knowing the necessity of paying for something and not wanting to pay for it is not hypocritical. Calling it proof of the flaw of liberalism is false and stinks of the whole "if you want to give the gubmint more money then write them a check" nonsense republicans throw around.
I agree that governments can operate on a deficit, due to their proposed gain of demand and consumption, and while I'm not sure of Keynes theory that the government could just pay people to dig holes and refill them to stimulate the economy.
Re: the non quoted part.
I don't understand what you're replying to with Hayek quotes. The quote is not the end or the beginning of the argument it is merely value added to an idea or maybe a source for an idea.
I have always found that going over an argument formally has helped me structure it better and refine my argument. This works for academic writing and casual writing like this forum.
List out the things your assuming from whole cloth as many as you can think of
Write down the conclusion you wish to reach in as detailed a point as you can get.
Using only logic get from your assumptions to the conclusion. If you can't make it then change the conclusion or figure out why you can't make it.
Then look at the whole thing and write it into a paragraph or three hundred.
Re: the quoted part
Do you believe monetary policy works?
Not Hayekian's classical view, but I think that Keynes' view is flawed as well because of the shadow economy, and why I think a government backed crypto currency is the future, and would make policy much easier to implement due to the inability for tax evasion.
What is "the shadow economy"? What does "Keynes' view is flawed because of the shadow economy" mean? What does "government backed crypto currency" have to do with any of that? Why would policy be easier to implement if tax evasion was easier to catch?
What does that have to do with either
A) What your quotes were about, why you posted them, what they were in response to, or a general framework for improving posts?
Basically, the gist of my argument is the inherent hypocrisy in bureaucracy
What specifically is the "inherent hypocrisy"? You have pointed out a lot of things you don't like about government (inefficiencies and insider trading specifically) but have yet to say what is hypocritical about this. Can you explain, without asking me to go to outside sources, what exactly the inherent hypocrisy is?
The US also is the most inefficient regulator of new pharmaceuticals and spends the most per capita for healthcare for a middling ranking internationally, all of which could be fixed with a few simple changes to the forms entitlements take and changes in the overall welfare system.
Yes, the proven fix is single-payer: a single, massive bureaucracy (based on real world examples) that in empiric example after empiric example provides more benefit at less cost than smaller, bureaucracies.
And all those organizations may have some bureaucracy, but they were founded with private capital, are much more transparent, have had more impact and are far more esteemed and with higher approval ratings then any government agency.
This is moving the goalposts. You were asked to provide examples or large organizations without bureaucracy, (apparently) couldn't, and now claims the above. Sorry, how an organization was founded has nothing to do with whether it has an bureaucracy or not right now. The same goes for whether it is more liked than a government organization.
Again, are you able to provide examples of large-to-massive organizations that operate efficiently without bureaucracy? It would strengthen your argument significantly, and I would be very interested because it can literally make my career (as my company has a hard-on for efficiency and eliminating waste).
And, because I would like to see where this conversation goes, I will give you this tip gratis for free: Telling people to go watch a video, listen to a podcast, or "go read up on" a general theory is not a good way to argue your point. All it does is tell people that you don't understand the subject because you are clearly not able to verbalize your own points, all you can do is refer to what other people say.
I don't understand how I'm supposed to be telling others to do homework when I posted what I was interested in discussing, with links to several synopsis and less than 5 minute videos that would be easier to convey the point than write out what others have already done. If I were being paid to be here or getting college credits, that'd be something else, but I can and have cited the briefest of sources I could find and was interested in others input.
My OP clearly states my most interested points, and what made me interested in starting this thread (it was this ad free cbs news video http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50157385n that clocks in at 4:59) and I've cited a few other sources just as background that I'll be happy to flesh out and discuss once I get some more time. I just figured offering a few books from amazon that people could peruse or read the synopsis and tell me their this. This was supposed to be a friendly discussion about a story of the day, and they're having a week long expose about similar topics on CBSNews this week, so if we can talk about this I'd be very happy.
As far as bureaucracy, every organization needs some level of management, and I am of the opinion that an organization whose bureaucracy is based on market fundamentals is inherently more efficient. Now, social security and medical care are social issues and have more to do with welfare program development, and that is where a very complicated discussion arises, which is why it has been a problem for 20 years with no real valid way to modify it due to the entitlements and 'paying in' that so many have done; I am not one who thinks it's a viable alternative to privatize social security insurance. In fact, if there's one thing the Great Recession has taught me is that larger scale insurance leverage should be backed by the government ala FDIC due to the fact that if one gets big enough, they'll gamble with the houses money irresponsibly knowing they'll be bailed out (ala AIG).
Snarky reply: Buddy, everything you say is flat out wrong. https://www.google.com/. Just go search for a few minutes and you will see. I'm not getting paid for this so I'm not interested in providing more than the briefest of sources.
Serious reply:
Comparing health insurance to any other insurance is stupid. There is a major difference between health insurance and any other insurance (quick question: how many cars do you expect to drive throughout your life? How many bodies do you expect to live in). health insurance operates in an environment where market forces do not make sense, which is why systems where they have been taken out of the health care equation consistently prove to be less costly and more efficient (on a social scale).
I am still interested in hearing about the "inherent" hypocrisy. You finally provided a quote about hypocritical liberals, but nothing about that is showing anything inherent. In fact, there is little hypocritical about the liberals you posted, as knowing the necessity of paying for something and not wanting to pay for it is not hypocritical. Calling it proof of the flaw of liberalism is false and stinks of the whole "if you want to give the gubmint more money then write them a check" nonsense republicans throw around.
I don't understand what you're arguing with me about. In case you haven't noticed, I've said I'm for single payer, and would've had that be my preferred and already made pretty much your argument about having only one body in a post. This isn't affordable care act thread part Deux, I was interested in talking about the revolving door of K street, the nepotism and machinery that occurs within, and how government officials get away with insider trading that would get any non-Congress member arrested for doing.
Congress members routinely exit office wealthier than when they went in, and beat the market by more than any index and most hedge funds, with no prior trading experience. This is the hypocrisy I was speaking of initially, and is in the other 60 minutes video I linked, and is in the book Throw them all out, which I have read, and had got some buzz and has a decent amount of data.
Really, the best way would probably begin to narrow down the conversation and define a few terms.
I don't think any bureaucracy is bad; I just feel that as one grows larger, and more powerful there are more opportunities for unethical behavior, and corruption. This goes for government and corporations, you might've noticed my dislike for Chaebol's. it's possible to resolve some of these issues, but that can be done only with transparency, and that is something I think is crucial within a well functioning bureau.
Basically, the gist of my argument is the inherent hypocrisy in bureaucracy
What specifically is the "inherent hypocrisy"? You have pointed out a lot of things you don't like about government (inefficiencies and insider trading specifically) but have yet to say what is hypocritical about this. Can you explain, without asking me to go to outside sources, what exactly the inherent hypocrisy is?
The US also is the most inefficient regulator of new pharmaceuticals and spends the most per capita for healthcare for a middling ranking internationally, all of which could be fixed with a few simple changes to the forms entitlements take and changes in the overall welfare system.
Yes, the proven fix is single-payer: a single, massive bureaucracy (based on real world examples) that in empiric example after empiric example provides more benefit at less cost than smaller, bureaucracies.
And all those organizations may have some bureaucracy, but they were founded with private capital, are much more transparent, have had more impact and are far more esteemed and with higher approval ratings then any government agency.
This is moving the goalposts. You were asked to provide examples or large organizations without bureaucracy, (apparently) couldn't, and now claims the above. Sorry, how an organization was founded has nothing to do with whether it has an bureaucracy or not right now. The same goes for whether it is more liked than a government organization.
Again, are you able to provide examples of large-to-massive organizations that operate efficiently without bureaucracy? It would strengthen your argument significantly, and I would be very interested because it can literally make my career (as my company has a hard-on for efficiency and eliminating waste).
And, because I would like to see where this conversation goes, I will give you this tip gratis for free: Telling people to go watch a video, listen to a podcast, or "go read up on" a general theory is not a good way to argue your point. All it does is tell people that you don't understand the subject because you are clearly not able to verbalize your own points, all you can do is refer to what other people say.
I don't understand how I'm supposed to be telling others to do homework when I posted what I was interested in discussing, with links to several synopsis and less than 5 minute videos that would be easier to convey the point than write out what others have already done. If I were being paid to be here or getting college credits, that'd be something else, but I can and have cited the briefest of sources I could find and was interested in others input.
My OP clearly states my most interested points, and what made me interested in starting this thread (it was this ad free cbs news video http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50157385n that clocks in at 4:59) and I've cited a few other sources just as background that I'll be happy to flesh out and discuss once I get some more time. I just figured offering a few books from amazon that people could peruse or read the synopsis and tell me their this. This was supposed to be a friendly discussion about a story of the day, and they're having a week long expose about similar topics on CBSNews this week, so if we can talk about this I'd be very happy.
As far as bureaucracy, every organization needs some level of management, and I am of the opinion that an organization whose bureaucracy is based on market fundamentals is inherently more efficient. Now, social security and medical care are social issues and have more to do with welfare program development, and that is where a very complicated discussion arises, which is why it has been a problem for 20 years with no real valid way to modify it due to the entitlements and 'paying in' that so many have done; I am not one who thinks it's a viable alternative to privatize social security insurance. In fact, if there's one thing the Great Recession has taught me is that larger scale insurance leverage should be backed by the government ala FDIC due to the fact that if one gets big enough, they'll gamble with the houses money irresponsibly knowing they'll be bailed out (ala AIG).
Snarky reply: Buddy, everything you say is flat out wrong. https://www.google.com/. Just go search for a few minutes and you will see. I'm not getting paid for this so I'm not interested in providing more than the briefest of sources.
Serious reply:
Comparing health insurance to any other insurance is stupid. There is a major difference between health insurance and any other insurance (quick question: how many cars do you expect to drive throughout your life? How many bodies do you expect to live in). health insurance operates in an environment where market forces do not make sense, which is why systems where they have been taken out of the health care equation consistently prove to be less costly and more efficient (on a social scale).
I am still interested in hearing about the "inherent" hypocrisy. You finally provided a quote about hypocritical liberals, but nothing about that is showing anything inherent. In fact, there is little hypocritical about the liberals you posted, as knowing the necessity of paying for something and not wanting to pay for it is not hypocritical. Calling it proof of the flaw of liberalism is false and stinks of the whole "if you want to give the gubmint more money then write them a check" nonsense republicans throw around.
I don't understand what you're arguing with me about. In case you haven't noticed, I've said I'm for single payer, and would've had that be my preferred and already made pretty much your argument about having only one body in a post. This isn't affordable care act thread part Deux, I was interested in talking about the revolving door of K street, the nepotism and machinery that occurs within, and how government officials get away with insider trading that would get any non-Congress member arrested for doing.
Congress members routinely exit office wealthier than when they went in, and beat the market by more than any index and most hedge funds, with no prior trading experience. This is the hypocrisy I was speaking of initially, and is in the other 60 minutes video I linked, and is in the book Throw them all out, which I have read, and had got some buzz and has a decent amount of data.
Really, the best way would probably begin to narrow down the conversation and define a few terms.
I don't think an bureaucracy is bad; I just feel that as one grows larger, and more powerful their are more opportunities for unethical behavior, and corruption. This goes for government and corporations, you might've noticed my dislike for Chaebol's. it's possible to resolve some of these issues, but that can be done only with transparency, and that is something I think is crucial within a well functioning bureau.
So the last part of your paragraph 1 and the entire paragraph 2 is what you meant by "inherent hypocrisy"? Good. I only had to ask twice to get you to explain what you were talking about in your own post.
Good. Now that we have solved that part of you OP lets move on to the next:
1. What exactly do you think the problem is?
2. What do you think the root cause is, and contributing causes?
3. What do you think the solution to the problem is?
4. Why do you think this is your preferred solution?
Answer those questions and you have finally made the point you should have made in your OP. Oh, and after you provide your answer to those questions, feel free to link to the specific quotes and paragraphs that influenced/determined your decision.
What is "the shadow economy"? What does "Keynes' view is flawed because of the shadow economy" mean? What does "government backed crypto currency" have to do with any of that? Why would policy be easier to implement if tax evasion was easier to catch?
What does that have to do with either
A) What your quotes were about, why you posted them, what they were in response to, or a general framework for improving posts?
Whether or not you believe monetary policy works?
The shadow economy is any unreported economic activity, from cash transactions that go unreported, to barter deals, or any sort of under the table work or service. It is proven that the higher a rate of taxation, more forms of private monies arise. This is why crypto-currencies are the future, as, outside of people that decide to live a gift economy lifestyle and never use currency, every transaction is traceable, and if it was backed by the government, individuals could have to input a number (like an SSN) to authorize transactions. It would also deflate and give more accurate counts of the true money supply, and a number of other quants.
I believe in taxing risky behavior, I just feel consumption taxes and valued added taxes are the most progressive, and it also believe in clear representation of where tax money is going. The topic of monetary policy is very complicated, especially since I have a hybrid view of a few different schools, and I really believe that the reason the world is in such a slow recovery right now is our insistence on relying on supply side models, instead of putting money into the hands of the needy people that will spend it. I believe spending creates jobs, not people.
My Hayekian quotes, and cites, were just to state that I'm more of a classical libertarian with a bit more reliance on currency social science. That was one of my major arguments from the last thread was that libertarian doesn't mean exactly what most people here seem to think it does, unless one is a member of the Libertarian party and preaching non-sense.
When a private institution sucks at its job, people will go to their competitors, yeah.
And when a public institution sucks, people will vote for the politicians who vow to reform/get rid of it.
Government institutions are not immune from public opinion. They need to be efficient, too. Sometimes an inefficient institution survives, yeah. But that happens in the private sector too. Source: tons of fast food joints survive on the strength of their marketing team, not their assistant manager.
EDIT- Please, private sector people get away with crazy shit all the time. It has way more to do with power than it does public or private sector.
Basically, the gist of my argument is the inherent hypocrisy in bureaucracy
What specifically is the "inherent hypocrisy"? You have pointed out a lot of things you don't like about government (inefficiencies and insider trading specifically) but have yet to say what is hypocritical about this. Can you explain, without asking me to go to outside sources, what exactly the inherent hypocrisy is?
The US also is the most inefficient regulator of new pharmaceuticals and spends the most per capita for healthcare for a middling ranking internationally, all of which could be fixed with a few simple changes to the forms entitlements take and changes in the overall welfare system.
Yes, the proven fix is single-payer: a single, massive bureaucracy (based on real world examples) that in empiric example after empiric example provides more benefit at less cost than smaller, bureaucracies.
And all those organizations may have some bureaucracy, but they were founded with private capital, are much more transparent, have had more impact and are far more esteemed and with higher approval ratings then any government agency.
This is moving the goalposts. You were asked to provide examples or large organizations without bureaucracy, (apparently) couldn't, and now claims the above. Sorry, how an organization was founded has nothing to do with whether it has an bureaucracy or not right now. The same goes for whether it is more liked than a government organization.
Again, are you able to provide examples of large-to-massive organizations that operate efficiently without bureaucracy? It would strengthen your argument significantly, and I would be very interested because it can literally make my career (as my company has a hard-on for efficiency and eliminating waste).
And, because I would like to see where this conversation goes, I will give you this tip gratis for free: Telling people to go watch a video, listen to a podcast, or "go read up on" a general theory is not a good way to argue your point. All it does is tell people that you don't understand the subject because you are clearly not able to verbalize your own points, all you can do is refer to what other people say.
I don't understand how I'm supposed to be telling others to do homework when I posted what I was interested in discussing, with links to several synopsis and less than 5 minute videos that would be easier to convey the point than write out what others have already done. If I were being paid to be here or getting college credits, that'd be something else, but I can and have cited the briefest of sources I could find and was interested in others input.
My OP clearly states my most interested points, and what made me interested in starting this thread (it was this ad free cbs news video http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50157385n that clocks in at 4:59) and I've cited a few other sources just as background that I'll be happy to flesh out and discuss once I get some more time. I just figured offering a few books from amazon that people could peruse or read the synopsis and tell me their this. This was supposed to be a friendly discussion about a story of the day, and they're having a week long expose about similar topics on CBSNews this week, so if we can talk about this I'd be very happy.
As far as bureaucracy, every organization needs some level of management, and I am of the opinion that an organization whose bureaucracy is based on market fundamentals is inherently more efficient. Now, social security and medical care are social issues and have more to do with welfare program development, and that is where a very complicated discussion arises, which is why it has been a problem for 20 years with no real valid way to modify it due to the entitlements and 'paying in' that so many have done; I am not one who thinks it's a viable alternative to privatize social security insurance. In fact, if there's one thing the Great Recession has taught me is that larger scale insurance leverage should be backed by the government ala FDIC due to the fact that if one gets big enough, they'll gamble with the houses money irresponsibly knowing they'll be bailed out (ala AIG).
Snarky reply: Buddy, everything you say is flat out wrong. https://www.google.com/. Just go search for a few minutes and you will see. I'm not getting paid for this so I'm not interested in providing more than the briefest of sources.
Serious reply:
Comparing health insurance to any other insurance is stupid. There is a major difference between health insurance and any other insurance (quick question: how many cars do you expect to drive throughout your life? How many bodies do you expect to live in). health insurance operates in an environment where market forces do not make sense, which is why systems where they have been taken out of the health care equation consistently prove to be less costly and more efficient (on a social scale).
I am still interested in hearing about the "inherent" hypocrisy. You finally provided a quote about hypocritical liberals, but nothing about that is showing anything inherent. In fact, there is little hypocritical about the liberals you posted, as knowing the necessity of paying for something and not wanting to pay for it is not hypocritical. Calling it proof of the flaw of liberalism is false and stinks of the whole "if you want to give the gubmint more money then write them a check" nonsense republicans throw around.
I don't understand what you're arguing with me about. In case you haven't noticed, I've said I'm for single payer, and would've had that be my preferred and already made pretty much your argument about having only one body in a post. This isn't affordable care act thread part Deux, I was interested in talking about the revolving door of K street, the nepotism and machinery that occurs within, and how government officials get away with insider trading that would get any non-Congress member arrested for doing.
Congress members routinely exit office wealthier than when they went in, and beat the market by more than any index and most hedge funds, with no prior trading experience. This is the hypocrisy I was speaking of initially, and is in the other 60 minutes video I linked, and is in the book Throw them all out, which I have read, and had got some buzz and has a decent amount of data.
Really, the best way would probably begin to narrow down the conversation and define a few terms.
I don't think an bureaucracy is bad; I just feel that as one grows larger, and more powerful their are more opportunities for unethical behavior, and corruption. This goes for government and corporations, you might've noticed my dislike for Chaebol's. it's possible to resolve some of these issues, but that can be done only with transparency, and that is something I think is crucial within a well functioning bureau.
So the last part of your paragraph 1 and the entire paragraph 2 is what you meant by "inherent hypocrisy"? Good. I only had to ask twice to get you to explain what you were talking about in your own post.
Good. Now that we have solved that part of you OP lets move on to the next:
1. What exactly do you think the problem is?
2. What do you think the root cause is, and contributing causes?
3. What do you think the solution to the problem is?
4. Why do you think this is your preferred solution?
Answer those questions and you have finally made the point you should have made in your OP. Oh, and after you provide your answer to those questions, feel free to link to the specific quotes and paragraphs that influenced/determined your decision.
I didn't realize when I admit a thread was a work in progress and just wanted to point out 10 minutes of news stories I've seen recently, and planned to write and do a better job if the thread gained traction (which I will do). I also stated the points I said to you a couple times on the first page, and as far as fixing it, I've proposed a few models we could do to better incentivize. I think prohibiting members or their immediate family members from trading stock and buying any IPOs while in office could be a good start.
When a private institution sucks at its job, people will go to their competitors, yeah.
And when a public institution sucks, people will vote for the politicians who vow to reform/get rid of it.
Government institutions are not immune from public opinion. They need to be efficient, too. Sometimes an inefficient institution survives, yeah. But that happens in the private sector too. Source: tons of fast food joints survive on the strength of their marketing team, not their assistant manager.
Most fast food restaurants are franchises, the definition of popular sovereignty in a confederated business model sorta way, but I agree their dues for advertisements and good placement are what keep a lot of the inferior franchises around.
Another possible solution re: congressional insider trading that'd be more realistic, is to have their trades have to be public information and they're allowed to only buy at market closing rates when congress isn't in session. I'm just spit balling here, but will try and flesh it out a bit with a few of the proposed amendments that've popped up. I remember the original 60 minutes episode got some bill introduced, but it just got tabled.
Posts
You just cited Teach For America and charter schools as proof?
I hope that was a joke.
It is literally gibberish. The words and sometimes individual sentences make sense. But when you put them together it's gobbledygook.
The reason for this is because there is no structure to your position or argument. We only know that the thing you're supporting is "better" but we don't know why it's better or even what "better" means. You claim to have a solution but don't even outline what that solution means.
TFA is actually pretty much garbage for education, since aparently a 5 week summer class isn't actually sufficient training to make a good teacher.
http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/teach.pdf
And charters schools are no better on average than public schools, the first that opened just had hella selection bias because they could skim the smartest kids with the most involved parents.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2010/0629/Study-On-average-charter-schools-do-no-better-than-public-schools
Let's not forget that TFA is more than happy to push for government funding as well.
It is about 90% government funded, including Universities. That is probably not a direction you'd want?
There is a lot of critisism in Germany on the vocational training: There is a lot of correlation between parent income and the odds of ending up at a vocational school, and the decision gets made fairly early in development (around 11y old).
You need to look at the more recent research for both organizations, and I don't understand how this is really relevant to the economic argument I outlined in the OP. There's several links I've provided that would outline these positions in less time than it would take me to compose my own, and would give the gist to you as fast as what I could write. Just read the amazons book description page or watch the 5 minute video, or read the article on cbsnews whichever you prefer. The 60 minutes videos are around 5 minutes each and are on 60 minutes
What specifically is the "inherent hypocrisy"? You have pointed out a lot of things you don't like about government (inefficiencies and insider trading specifically) but have yet to say what is hypocritical about this. Can you explain, without asking me to go to outside sources, what exactly the inherent hypocrisy is?
Yes, the proven fix is single-payer: a single, massive bureaucracy (based on real world examples) that in empiric example after empiric example provides more benefit at less cost than smaller, bureaucracies.
This is moving the goalposts. You were asked to provide examples or large organizations without bureaucracy, (apparently) couldn't, and now claims the above. Sorry, how an organization was founded has nothing to do with whether it has an bureaucracy or not right now. The same goes for whether it is more liked than a government organization.
Again, are you able to provide examples of large-to-massive organizations that operate efficiently without bureaucracy? It would strengthen your argument significantly, and I would be very interested because it can literally make my career (as my company has a hard-on for efficiency and eliminating waste).
And, because I would like to see where this conversation goes, I will give you this tip gratis for free: Telling people to go watch a video, listen to a podcast, or "go read up on" a general theory is not a good way to argue your point. All it does is tell people that you don't understand the subject because you are clearly not able to verbalize your own points, all you can do is refer to what other people say.
I don't know, you are the one who brought up TFA and charter schools. You clearly thought they were relevant. And once again, you didn't make an argument in the OP. You linked some books and news articles that said 'Politicians are trading on inside information they learn of via their positions', that's not an argument its a statement of something occurring.
Wait
The constant referral to 60 Minuntes clips. It all makes sense.
Are you Dan Rather?
I don't understand how I'm supposed to be telling others to do homework when I posted what I was interested in discussing, with links to several synopsis and less than 5 minute videos that would be easier to convey the point than write out what others have already done. If I were being paid to be here or getting college credits, that'd be something else, but I can and have cited the briefest of sources I could find and was interested in others input.
My OP clearly states my most interested points, and what made me interested in starting this thread (it was this ad free cbs news video http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50157385n that clocks in at 4:59) and I've cited a few other sources just as background that I'll be happy to flesh out and discuss once I get some more time. I just figured offering a few books from amazon that people could peruse or read the synopsis and tell me their this. This was supposed to be a friendly discussion about a story of the day, and they're having a week long expose about similar topics on CBSNews this week, so if we can talk about this I'd be very happy.
As far as bureaucracy, every organization needs some level of management, and I am of the opinion that an organization whose bureaucracy is based on market fundamentals is inherently more efficient. Now, social security and medical care are social issues and have more to do with welfare program development, and that is where a very complicated discussion arises, which is why it has been a problem for 20 years with no real valid way to modify it due to the entitlements and 'paying in' that so many have done; I am not one who thinks it's a viable alternative to privatize social security insurance. In fact, if there's one thing the Great Recession has taught me is that larger scale insurance leverage should be backed by the government ala FDIC due to the fact that if one gets big enough, they'll gamble with the houses money irresponsibly knowing they'll be bailed out (ala AIG).
You're citing an article from 1946. Social science has come a long way, and I'm not the sort of libertarian that thinks medical care should be a privatized issue, and I do feel that the State owes it's citizens a guarantee of a fair living. I'm more of the Hayekian sort of libertarian, and even he was considered too socialist to people like Ayn Rand and Friedman.
I also updated the OP with spoilers quotes from the synopsis of Schweizer's books on amazon. They have Q&A's and both videos are around 5 minutes. I'll try and make it better if this thread still is of valid conversation, but I'd be interested in hearing peoples impressions of how novice investors that enter Congress routinely beat the market by more than any index and most hedge funds using their influence and inside information; things that would get a private businessman arrested. Congressmen routinely exit office MUCH better off financially than when they enter.
Another issue as well is the nepotism of the hiring of government interns, which is the most recent news story that made me decide to come back here to post. I'm not looking for this to be adversarial, I'm just trying to have a dialogue.
I corrected the OP with the synopsis of what they do. I'm sorry for giving a half ass thread to start discussion, I just didn't think watching a 5 minute video was a very high bar, and I was wrong, and will refrain from using them as the thrust of my argument in the future.
Bureaucracy still is not inherently hypocritical.
It is indeed still absolutely vital for any large organization to have any meaningful effect on the world.
I do not know why you think that video is especially compelling.
I think that a bureaucracy not based on market fundamentals or any sorta of goal oriented philosophy, it will create inefficiencies, and more opportunities for honest graft . I mean, I'm not against bureaucracies period, since there are certain things which they are needed, I just believe that without complete transparency and a weak executive, they are more prone to be inefficient than a market driven management structure.
Being market oriented does not guarantee efficiencies. See insurance.
Not being market oriented doesn't mean it doesn't have goals. See those charities you linked.
If you just wanted to point out that ba things are bad then, well, yeah no shit.
One of these relatives that works for my grandfather was such a trouble maker and such a useless human being that my grandfather now literally pays him not to come into work, because when he did work there, even when he was actually doing work, he cost the company money. If he wasn't a relative he would just be fired, but my grandpa is more or less expected to provide some kind of menial work for any relative who has a spouse and can't find work (if the guy wasn't married with children my grandpa would be free to fire him).
We are not getting college credit for this either MadCaddy. So yes i would precisely enjoy it if you did not waste my time for which you are not compensating me by telling me to go read books and watch films without even any indication of what those films or books are supposed to elucidate me on.
Here is an example of a good cite:
So i read Keynes's "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money" and he made an interesting point about speculation. He was saying that speculation and wild swings in the market can even be rational. He reasoned "if I believe that the market will fall, even if i believe that the fundamentals of the businesses are strong, then selling the business is a rational response". Since this could actually put businesses out of business he inferred that a rationality assumption on market participants was not enough to ensure against disequilibrium.
The core of the macro argument was simplified and presented by John Hicks in his paper "Mr. Keynes and the Classics: A Suggested Interpretation" which was further expanded by the Mundell Flemming model, a fairly common macroecnomic model that might be taught to an undergraduate course or as a piece of a larger graduate class.
The IS-LM model shows how when you increase the money supply or spend money via the government you can increase total societal output(just like has happened in many governments when they have spent for war causes). It does this by the mechanism of an equilibrium between demand/supply for Bonds and Money.
...and this is why is support massive government spending on everything forever.
This is like 3 paragraphs. Less than you wrote telling us you cannot do our homework for us. Its simple, its fast, it lays out exactly what people are talking about. It lets us know what we're discussing and why we could care.
You do realize that you cited The Road To Serfdom(1944), without context to what specifically in the book you're talking about right?
Insurance just recently entered the age of an open exchange, so too say that insurance is inherently unfeasible privately is a bit of a reach, imho, as I feel that private companies can do guarantees on flights. Diving, automobiles, and chattel property and most real estate.. The issue is when the insurance company begins to resemble a Chaebol more because it's then when "too big too fail" occurs, and we get things like the AIG bailout.
Insurance companies with good management can work, but i do feel their exposure must be regulated and not leveraged to the degree that most jurisdictions currently allow. Geico is an example of a well ran diversified insurance company, but even it originated essentially as a way to insure government employees privately.
Which is directly covered by the synopsis I have since added, and in the second video clip I linked goes into great detail of that, and let us not forget Jack Abramhoff.
While you may believe that to be true, that doesn't make it so - and in fact, there's quite a bit of empirical evidence that shows that the opposite is true (one of the best examples is Medicare vs. privately run healthcare.) Spouting dogma won't get you very far in this forum, because if there's one thing we enjoy, it's shredding dogma to bits.
Also, "efficiency" is a dangerous word to throw around. There was a discussion earlier in [chat] about creating a digital ID card system to make carrying ID more convenient and efficient - and there was a surprising number of forumers from all parts of the spectrum arguing against the concept. Efficiency for the sake of efficiency is a trap.
Insurance entered open exchanges kicking and screaming, lobbying against, and through a massive new set of government infrastructure to ensure the exchanges work and to correct a bunch of externalities that would prevent people getting coverage (individual mandate + no precondition exclusions + being able to buy as a notional "block").
Totally private health insurance does not work absent a ton of bureaucracy to make sure it does, and "too big to fail" is a situation that arises absent government regulation, not because of it since the natural state of every company is to expand to a monopoly.
Hayek made these statements before the Cold War, which is important to remember: And it was these reasons (and the Soviet Union insisting on subsidizing gas while letting people starve! and keep ramping up military expenditures to try and grow their economy the proven Austrian/German way of military dominance).
I really do wish Keynes had lived to have some debate with Hayek after the war, and it would've been interesting to see how different reconstruction could've been. I really wish Breton-Woods would've accepted the bancor so you and I agree on a lot of the broad strokes; it's just that I believe there is a point of diminishing returns.
I agree that governments can operate on a deficit, due to their proposed gain of demand and consumption, and while I'm not sure of Keynes theory that the government could just pay people to dig holes and refill them to stimulate the economy.
And the quote from the Road to Serfdom that some people call Hayek socialist over (but which I agree with as well) was:
If insurance isn't in an exchange, or if there's no way to compare like to like and make any sort of informed decision, it's not an open market. The insurance markets need to be in exchanges, and they need government regulation to limit their liability, ensure that they aren't gouging profits and to ensure the exchanges are operating fairly; essentially taking the role of exchequer or a clearinghouse. I am pro the Affordable care Act, although
I would've preferred single payer, as I believe most mandatory healthcare needs are impossible to have fair negotiations due to the fact that if you're told you need your appendix out, or it's going to burst, you're not exactly going to be able to go down the street, or call around to comparison shop.
Privately ran healthcare was never completely private and was impossible to comparison shop, so wasn't in a true open market. I understand how bad private health insurance was pre-Affordable Care Act, and what a cancer they were to the American Healthcare system.
Re: the non quoted part.
I don't understand what you're replying to with Hayek quotes. The quote is not the end or the beginning of the argument it is merely value added to an idea or maybe a source for an idea.
I have always found that going over an argument formally has helped me structure it better and refine my argument. This works for academic writing and casual writing like this forum.
List out the things your assuming from whole cloth as many as you can think of
Write down the conclusion you wish to reach in as detailed a point as you can get.
Using only logic get from your assumptions to the conclusion. If you can't make it then change the conclusion or figure out why you can't make it.
Then look at the whole thing and write it into a paragraph or three hundred.
Re: the quoted part
Do you believe monetary policy works?
Snarky reply: Buddy, everything you say is flat out wrong. https://www.google.com/. Just go search for a few minutes and you will see. I'm not getting paid for this so I'm not interested in providing more than the briefest of sources.
Serious reply:
Comparing health insurance to any other insurance is stupid. There is a major difference between health insurance and any other insurance (quick question: how many cars do you expect to drive throughout your life? How many bodies do you expect to live in). health insurance operates in an environment where market forces do not make sense, which is why systems where they have been taken out of the health care equation consistently prove to be less costly and more efficient (on a social scale).
I am still interested in hearing about the "inherent" hypocrisy. You finally provided a quote about hypocritical liberals, but nothing about that is showing anything inherent. In fact, there is little hypocritical about the liberals you posted, as knowing the necessity of paying for something and not wanting to pay for it is not hypocritical. Calling it proof of the flaw of liberalism is false and stinks of the whole "if you want to give the gubmint more money then write them a check" nonsense republicans throw around.
Not Hayekian's classical view, but I think that Keynes' view is flawed as well because of the shadow economy, and why I think a government backed crypto currency is the future, and would make policy much easier to implement due to the inability for tax evasion.
What does that have to do with either
A) What your quotes were about, why you posted them, what they were in response to, or a general framework for improving posts?
I don't understand what you're arguing with me about. In case you haven't noticed, I've said I'm for single payer, and would've had that be my preferred and already made pretty much your argument about having only one body in a post. This isn't affordable care act thread part Deux, I was interested in talking about the revolving door of K street, the nepotism and machinery that occurs within, and how government officials get away with insider trading that would get any non-Congress member arrested for doing.
Congress members routinely exit office wealthier than when they went in, and beat the market by more than any index and most hedge funds, with no prior trading experience. This is the hypocrisy I was speaking of initially, and is in the other 60 minutes video I linked, and is in the book Throw them all out, which I have read, and had got some buzz and has a decent amount of data.
Really, the best way would probably begin to narrow down the conversation and define a few terms.
I don't think any bureaucracy is bad; I just feel that as one grows larger, and more powerful there are more opportunities for unethical behavior, and corruption. This goes for government and corporations, you might've noticed my dislike for Chaebol's. it's possible to resolve some of these issues, but that can be done only with transparency, and that is something I think is crucial within a well functioning bureau.
So the last part of your paragraph 1 and the entire paragraph 2 is what you meant by "inherent hypocrisy"? Good. I only had to ask twice to get you to explain what you were talking about in your own post.
Good. Now that we have solved that part of you OP lets move on to the next:
1. What exactly do you think the problem is?
2. What do you think the root cause is, and contributing causes?
3. What do you think the solution to the problem is?
4. Why do you think this is your preferred solution?
Answer those questions and you have finally made the point you should have made in your OP. Oh, and after you provide your answer to those questions, feel free to link to the specific quotes and paragraphs that influenced/determined your decision.
The shadow economy is any unreported economic activity, from cash transactions that go unreported, to barter deals, or any sort of under the table work or service. It is proven that the higher a rate of taxation, more forms of private monies arise. This is why crypto-currencies are the future, as, outside of people that decide to live a gift economy lifestyle and never use currency, every transaction is traceable, and if it was backed by the government, individuals could have to input a number (like an SSN) to authorize transactions. It would also deflate and give more accurate counts of the true money supply, and a number of other quants.
I believe in taxing risky behavior, I just feel consumption taxes and valued added taxes are the most progressive, and it also believe in clear representation of where tax money is going. The topic of monetary policy is very complicated, especially since I have a hybrid view of a few different schools, and I really believe that the reason the world is in such a slow recovery right now is our insistence on relying on supply side models, instead of putting money into the hands of the needy people that will spend it. I believe spending creates jobs, not people.
My Hayekian quotes, and cites, were just to state that I'm more of a classical libertarian with a bit more reliance on currency social science. That was one of my major arguments from the last thread was that libertarian doesn't mean exactly what most people here seem to think it does, unless one is a member of the Libertarian party and preaching non-sense.
And when a public institution sucks, people will vote for the politicians who vow to reform/get rid of it.
Government institutions are not immune from public opinion. They need to be efficient, too. Sometimes an inefficient institution survives, yeah. But that happens in the private sector too. Source: tons of fast food joints survive on the strength of their marketing team, not their assistant manager.
EDIT- Please, private sector people get away with crazy shit all the time. It has way more to do with power than it does public or private sector.
I didn't realize when I admit a thread was a work in progress and just wanted to point out 10 minutes of news stories I've seen recently, and planned to write and do a better job if the thread gained traction (which I will do). I also stated the points I said to you a couple times on the first page, and as far as fixing it, I've proposed a few models we could do to better incentivize. I think prohibiting members or their immediate family members from trading stock and buying any IPOs while in office could be a good start.
Most fast food restaurants are franchises, the definition of popular sovereignty in a confederated business model sorta way, but I agree their dues for advertisements and good placement are what keep a lot of the inferior franchises around.