ILvEowyn
Ringbearer
Alliance: Servant to Galadriel
Last Visited: 19 Nov 2009
Joined: 28 Dec 2000
Posts: 12025
Location: lovely Western NY
|
|
|
|
|
Gandalf'sMother
Mariner
Alliance: default
Last Visited: 20 Nov 2009
Joined: 19 Sep 2000
Posts: 7924
|
Last edited by Gandalf'sMother on Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:11 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
Bombadillo
Ranger of the North
Alliance: Fangorn
Last Visited: 17 Nov 2009
Joined: 21 Mar 2000
Posts: 3851
|
|
|
|
|
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Mariner
Alliance: Grey Havens
Last Visited: 19 Nov 2009
Joined: 09 Jun 2003
Posts: 8540
Location: The Real World
|
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 2:18 pm |
     |
|
Bombadillo said:
Quote:
CG
wrote:
I have said that sometimes the government produces goods or services that a sane person would actually pay for, but does it at twice the cost for half the quality. That applies to the space program giving us satellites.
Who would have done satellites if not the government? Corporations
barely
have the funds to put people into space privately these days and there is definitely no market for it.
That much is true, since they are paying taxes to support the government space program. While people love to compare the top federal tax rate to top tax rates of other countries, they forget that the corporate tax rate of the USA is quite above average. There's the money that they no longer have to do any space work.
You cannot tell me that the telecommunications companies would have no interest in putting anything into space - they're the primary customer of the government's space program.
Bombadillo said:
Without the government getting involved, regardless of what you think of their agenda or their quality workmanship we would still be walking around wondering if the moon actually was made of cheese.
Sure we would. 
Bombadillo said:
Also, military R&D. Drives an entire industry all by itself and private industry uses the research for a TON of stuff we take for granted now. Without the government involved in R&D in its various projects we would be missing so many things that we take for granted every day that it's not even worth trying to start a list.
Your list would have to include specifically those items that would never have been invented had the military not driven the R&D. Putting many of the discoveries you are thinking of on the list since it was invented due to military R&D is an unwarranted assumption.
Bombadillo said:
The private sector is limited, always will be.
Because it is composed of humans, that is true. But it is less limited than other human organizations.
Bombadillo said:
The government has limitations too, that is obvious. Having them work together for mutual benefit is the best case scenario, figuring out exactly how that goes in reality is a totally different story...
It is the best case scenario to tie business
down
to the level of government efficiency?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gandalf'sMother
Mariner
Alliance: default
Last Visited: 20 Nov 2009
Joined: 19 Sep 2000
Posts: 7924
|
|
|
|
|
vison
Mariner
Alliance: House of Elrond
Last Visited: 20 Nov 2009
Joined: 31 Dec 2003
Posts: 8317
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:31 pm |
|
|
Jeez, C_G, you appear to be a man of much broader experience than I had formerly believed.
Can you tell the rest of us how you became so familiar with the sorts of persons one finds in a whorehouse?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bombadillo
Ranger of the North
Alliance: Fangorn
Last Visited: 17 Nov 2009
Joined: 21 Mar 2000
Posts: 3851
|
|
|
|
|
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Mariner
Alliance: Grey Havens
Last Visited: 19 Nov 2009
Joined: 09 Jun 2003
Posts: 8540
Location: The Real World
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 9:15 am |
|
|
Time to bring up the specter of a takeover by the corporations. Time to mention corporations that wouldn't exist without government support and business, such as Haliburton and SAIC as examples of those very same corporations that would take over with less government. They wouldn't even exist if we had less government, but if we had less government they would take over. Years ago the left held up the much more realistic example of the Mafia taking over.
Oh you mean the rest of the corporations, the ones that sell to the public, that they would take over. They would suddenly acquire the power to levy taxes if we refuse to buy their products. If you buy a Big Mac then Burger King will put out a hit on you.
No that's not what you're talking about either. If we had less government it means that the corporations would be taking over a government that is exactly as big as the one we have now (which is somehow less big than the one we have now) and manipulating the writing of the legislation in their favor, exactly as they do now. But if we had less government for the corporations to exploit somehow they'd exploit it even more.
No, that's not it either. Well, we know the corporations are evil, doing their corporation thing in their corporation buildings.
Did you know that the corporation is actually a creation of the state?
South Park said:
Stan:
So it seems like we have enough people now. When do we start taking down the corporations?
Hippie (takes a drag on his joint):
Yeah man, the corporations. Right now they're raping the world for money!
Kyle:
Yeah, so, where are they? Let's go get 'em.
Hippie:
Right now we're proving we don't need corporations. We don't need money. This can become a commune where everyone just helps each other.
Hippie:
Yeah, we'll have one guy who like, who like, makes bread. A-and one guy who like, l-looks out for other people's safety.
Stan:
You mean like a baker and a cop?
Hippie:
No no, can't you imagine a place where people live together and like, provide services for each other in exchange for their services?
Kyle:
Yeah, it's called a town.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bombadillo
Ranger of the North
Alliance: Fangorn
Last Visited: 17 Nov 2009
Joined: 21 Mar 2000
Posts: 3851
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 12:43 pm |
|
|
This is a really easy answer
CG.
ANTI-TRUST.
Individual consumers and the Free Market itself needs protection from the tendency of large businesses to buy each other out, merge, or otherwise create monopolies. These monopolies stifle innovation, potentially run up prices, and stagnate the industry they are in.
When I talk about corporate take-over, this is what I am talking about. Entities that are too big to fail, in lockstep with the government, and building a relentless market share to the detriment of everyone except their shareholders.
Hmmm, Goldman-Sachs anyone? 
P.S. - Before you go accusing me of "commune"-ism again, read what I actually wrote:
Quote:
And despite all rumors to the contrary, this kind of efficient blending is what I advocate.
That's efficient blending between
private and public sectors
for the reading impaired.
|
|
Last edited by Bombadillo on Wed Oct 28, 2009 1:23 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Mariner
Alliance: Grey Havens
Last Visited: 19 Nov 2009
Joined: 09 Jun 2003
Posts: 8540
Location: The Real World
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 1:11 pm |
|
|
Yeah, exactly something that wouldn't exist in the free market I advocate. So we can't have the system I advocate because there is this threat from this bad thing that wouldn't exist in the first place.
Tell me, if a government is not able to give out bailouts, how would it bail out Goldman-Sachs?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gandalf'sMother
Mariner
Alliance: default
Last Visited: 20 Nov 2009
Joined: 19 Sep 2000
Posts: 7924
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 1:15 pm |
|
|
Bombadillo said:
This is a really easy answer
CG.
ANTI-TRUST.
Individual consumers and the Free Market itself needs protection from the tendency of large businesses to buy each other out, merge, or otherwise create monopolies. These monopolies stifle innovation, potentially run up prices, and stagnate the industry they are in.
When I talk about corporate take-over, this is what I am talking about. Entities that are too big to fail, in lockstep with the government, and building a relentless market share to the detriment of everyone except their shareholders.
Hmmm, Goldman-Sachs anyone?
I think its more than that. Its the simple fact that corporations do not serve the public. They serve their shareholders. They are not designed to provide services for people. They are designed to turn a profit.
Sure, that often coincides with providing goods and services to people. However, what businesses (and economists) do not do very well is internalize externalities - i.e. they completely ignore the external costs of business activities, such as the costs of pollution, fueling conflict, prohibiting people from accessing cheap health services, etc, etc. Governments can also help enforce the internalization of those externalities, which serves the public.
-GM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Mariner
Alliance: Grey Havens
Last Visited: 19 Nov 2009
Joined: 09 Jun 2003
Posts: 8540
Location: The Real World
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:29 pm |
|
|
It is by serving the public that businesses serve the owners. McDonalds would not serve the owners of McDonalds if McDonalds did not serve hamburgers to willing customers. If McDonalds fails to serve the public then McDonalds fails to serve the shareholders.
How long can any business stay in business if it doesn't serve the public? Well, if it's a government granted monopoly, or if it is the government, for quite a while. But in any other circumstances the only way a business can serve the owners is by serving the public. It is wrong to say that serving the public and serving the shareholders often coincides because it always coincides.
Unless of course we are dealing with the problem of externalities, a field the government has really messed up. Once upon a time in another environmentalism thread I tried to argue for a property-rights standard to protect against pollution, instead of the regulatory approach. Vison pointed out how that wouldn't work because of an example she provided in which it works so well that the government took away the property rights of those whose property was later abused.
The regulatory approach doesn't "internalize those externalities" - instead it permits the externalities
as long as they are under some bureaucrat set limit
and if you are harmed by the externality but it is under the limit you have absolutely no recourse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
vison
Mariner
Alliance: House of Elrond
Last Visited: 20 Nov 2009
Joined: 31 Dec 2003
Posts: 8317
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:35 pm |
|
|
So you would be cool with a country where the only restaurants were McDonald's and the only stores were Walmarts? Actually, the US is heading down that path at breakneck speed as it is.
Shame, really. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Swordsman_Of_The_Tower
Ideas are weapons
Alliance: Rohan
Last Visited: 19 Nov 2009
Joined: 10 Aug 2002
Posts: 1691
Location: Massachusetts
|
 |
Maria Maria
She reminds me of a west side story
Growing up in Spanish Harlem
She's living the life just like a movie star
Maria Maria
She fell in love in East L.A.
To the sounds of the guitar
Played by Carlos Santana
Stop the looting, stop the shooting
Pick pocking on the corner
See as the rich is getting richer
The poorer is getting poorer
See mi y Maria on the corner
Thinking of ways to make it better
In my mailbox there's an eviction letter
Somebody just said see you later
-Santana "Maria Maria" |
|
|
|
|
Bombadillo
Ranger of the North
Alliance: Fangorn
Last Visited: 17 Nov 2009
Joined: 21 Mar 2000
Posts: 3851
|
|
|
|
|
Gandalf'sMother
Mariner
Alliance: default
Last Visited: 20 Nov 2009
Joined: 19 Sep 2000
Posts: 7924
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 6:52 am |
|
|
Bombadillo said:
Quote:
CG
wrote:
It is wrong to say that serving the public and serving the shareholders often coincides because it always coincides.
Let's say that you're Blue Shield and you own 85% market share in some state due to the fact that a while ago you negotiated a loophole in the anti-trust law that Obama SHOULD repeal regarding these health insurance behemoths. Exactly what metric would cause Blue Shield to need to lower their rates to their customers or provide more value and better service for their health insurance needs?
Answer: Nothing.
Monopolies are a very bad thing, and they are one of the reasons that our health care here in America is so farked up.
Serving the shareholders means generating profits. Generating profits does not always have the interests of the consumer in mind. To assume that they always coincide is choosing theory over common sense.
Amen.
-GM
|
|
|
|
|
|
rwhen
Gettin' Older
Alliance: Grey Havens
Last Visited: 20 Nov 2009
Joined: 08 Aug 2001
Posts: 20483
Location: Daytrippin'
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:32 am |
|
|
Gandalf'sMother said:
Bombadillo said:
Quote:
CG
wrote:
It is wrong to say that serving the public and serving the shareholders often coincides because it always coincides.
Let's say that you're Blue Shield and you own 85% market share in some state due to the fact that a while ago you negotiated a loophole in the anti-trust law that Obama SHOULD repeal regarding these health insurance behemoths. Exactly what metric would cause Blue Shield to need to lower their rates to their customers or provide more value and better service for their health insurance needs?
Answer: Nothing.
Monopolies are a very bad thing, and they are one of the reasons that our health care here in America is so farked up.
Serving the shareholders means generating profits. Generating profits does not always have the interests of the consumer in mind. To assume that they always coincide is choosing theory over common sense.
Amen.
-GM
Indeed. Look at the commercials we see every five minutes on the tube. There is now medication for things that WHO knew we needed, and the commercials are endless. Also the commercials for health insurance. It is crazy. Between discount mattresses and meds, I am not sure if I can make a decision.
|
|
 |
Love is as big or as little as a hug!!
I will always treasure and remember your appreciation. Thank you. -2007 WCA's
Overwhelmed by your support and appreciation. Thank you. - 2008 WCA's
The Expected Party!!
is now on the road to Gondor to celebrate. Join us.
Also trying to get
Tyg and Maedhros wed.
and getting into trouble with
Rally The Eldar.
Time out of Mind, forever bound to my Knight Ayslhyn
|
|
|
|
|
Xhen
Mariner
Alliance: Saruman
Last Visited: 19 Nov 2009
Joined: 29 Oct 2000
Posts: 7620
|
|
|
|
|
rwhen
Gettin' Older
Alliance: Grey Havens
Last Visited: 20 Nov 2009
Joined: 08 Aug 2001
Posts: 20483
Location: Daytrippin'
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:05 am |
|
|
CG, you are putting words in everyone's mouth to fit what you want to impose with your desires for health care reform.
I DO agree very much with what Bombadillo wrote. If the insurance companies cared at all about the insured, there wouldn't be the huge span between what the company spends to make money and what the company spends on the customers. It is crazy money we are talking here.
It IS all about the shareholders and not about the end user. Insurance companies are all about what they DON'T have to pay out to end users rather than being certain that their end users get full coverage for whatever they need it for.
What is to not understand about that?
|
|
|
Love is as big or as little as a hug!!
I will always treasure and remember your appreciation. Thank you. -2007 WCA's
Overwhelmed by your support and appreciation. Thank you. - 2008 WCA's
The Expected Party!!
is now on the road to Gondor to celebrate. Join us.
Also trying to get
Tyg and Maedhros wed.
and getting into trouble with
Rally The Eldar.
Time out of Mind, forever bound to my Knight Ayslhyn
|
|
|
|
|
vison
Mariner
Alliance: House of Elrond
Last Visited: 20 Nov 2009
Joined: 31 Dec 2003
Posts: 8317
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:07 am |
|
|
Xhen said:
Bombadillo said:
Monopolies are a very bad thing, and they are one of the reasons that our health care here in America is so farked up.
Unless, of course, it's a government run monopoly, right? That is the ultimate goal of the left with the public option as a trojan horse to eventually get them there.
The goal should be to increase competition between insurance companies by, among other things, allowing policies to be sold across state lines. This is very conspicuously missing from any of the the Democrat proposals because they don't actually want to increase competition. They want to eliminate private competition in favor of a massive expansion of government control.
Across state lines, eh? Like, for instance, the credit card companies? That sort of thing?
Sure, allow insurance to be sold across state lines. No problem, as long as the terms and conditions that apply are those of the purchaser's state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gandalf'sMother
Mariner
Alliance: default
Last Visited: 20 Nov 2009
Joined: 19 Sep 2000
Posts: 7924
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:10 am |
|
|
vison said:
Xhen said:
Bombadillo said:
Monopolies are a very bad thing, and they are one of the reasons that our health care here in America is so farked up.
Unless, of course, it's a government run monopoly, right? That is the ultimate goal of the left with the public option as a trojan horse to eventually get them there.
The goal should be to increase competition between insurance companies by, among other things, allowing policies to be sold across state lines. This is very conspicuously missing from any of the the Democrat proposals because they don't actually want to increase competition. They want to eliminate private competition in favor of a massive expansion of government control.
Across state lines, eh? Like, for instance, the credit card companies? That sort of thing?
Sure, allow insurance to be sold across state lines. No problem, as long as the terms and conditions that apply are those of the purchaser's state.
Exactly. I'm sorry, but people and insurers in Massachusetts shouldn't have to deal with the crud coming out of Alabama.
-GM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Xhen
Mariner
Alliance: Saruman
Last Visited: 19 Nov 2009
Joined: 29 Oct 2000
Posts: 7620
|
|
|
|
|
Gandalf'sMother
Mariner
Alliance: default
Last Visited: 20 Nov 2009
Joined: 19 Sep 2000
Posts: 7924
|
|
|
|
|
Xhen
Mariner
Alliance: Saruman
Last Visited: 19 Nov 2009
Joined: 29 Oct 2000
Posts: 7620
|
|
|
|
|
Gandalf'sMother
Mariner
Alliance: default
Last Visited: 20 Nov 2009
Joined: 19 Sep 2000
Posts: 7924
|
|
|
|
|
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Mariner
Alliance: Grey Havens
Last Visited: 19 Nov 2009
Joined: 09 Jun 2003
Posts: 8540
Location: The Real World
|
|
|
|
|
  |
|
Goto:
|
|
| Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 39, 40, 41 ... 44, 45, 46 Next |
|
|
| The time now is Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:45 pm ... All times are GMT - 8 Hours
|
|
| |
Give ILvEowyn a Premiere Membership!
