• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Private industry is not always the superior solution.

The market responds to demand, right? So, now, in addition to the demand for iPhones and other bells and whistles, there is a serious demand for real Social Justice.
Why doesn't the market offer it?
 
6e1b6bb92e4d06c921f8f562ad97855d.jpg

201278122134609734_20.jpg
 
Most of the time private industry is better. The main role of government should be to keep the playing field level, and to punish cheaters. That means, for instance, treaties that are fair to everyone, that prosecute the purveyors of dangerous or deadly products, and maintain a judicial system that regulates contracts and copyrights.

Government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers, or backstopping bad loans. It should be building out infrastructure that benefits everyone.
 
The market responds to demand, right? So, now, in addition to the demand for iPhones and other bells and whistles, there is a serious demand for real Social Justice.
Why doesn't the market offer it?

Real social justice is respecting individuals, their rights and liberties and their capacity to make choices for themselves. Communism is the enemy of all justice.
 
That's a very bold assumption you are making. Because employing a huge bundle of money to perform services is NOT the foremost motivator of Public Employees. Most know full well that their jobs are well within what we could call "The services industries". They ARE public servants. Their motivations are thus very different from those who work in other Services Industries that are profit motivated and thus highly competitive. This latter factor changes everything.

I am making the bold assertion that they are human beings. The fact that you idolize public service doesn't translate into effective behavioral differences between employees in the public as opposed to the private sector. You're the one making a bold assumption here, that somehow the creme of compassion and selflessness self-selects into public positions in such a systematic way as to make the bulk of them behave themselves without the need for oversight. The big difference between public and private jobs in many instances is the security, the relative lack of accountability. That would be true of some union jobs in the private sector as well and I am saying the similar incentive structures yield similar behavior and, consequently, similar outcomes and similar problems.

Getting the nose of the government into anythig to a point where you empower some public servants to make decisions, manage other employees and command budget absolutely does change incentives. You create an ecosystem where everyone involved has a deeply vested interest in the continued existence of the very problems they are tasked to erradicate.

I'm not saying you can't find idealists who are disposed to sacrifice themselves for the common good. But I am saying you have to be absurdly naive to build a system whose functionning hinges on the unlikely benevolence of people. Did you notice how Adam Smith worded his commentary on free markets? It doesn't matter if your butcher wouldn't shed a tear over your death because his interests are tightly intertwined with yours. Now, if he also is a great guy it's even better, but the whole thing still works just fine even if that phony smile he puts on when you walk in is a façade he puts up for purely selfish reason. Idiots read Smith and think he's saying human beings are horrible -- he isn't. He's saying the market is robust to bad people. They could be good people, but fortunately it's going to work relatively well even if they're not. Now, that is smart. Assuming public servants are somehow special and will behave themselves is naive beyond belief.
 
Capitalism in the United States (by the way. the richest country of capitalism) led to:
- unemployment
- homelessness
- poverty
- starvation
- illiteracy

US capitalists: "The greatest threat to society is communism!"

Capitalism provide employment, sehlter, wealth, food and access to knowledge to masses of people. Communism, on the other hand, has always made absolutely everyone miserable, save for a handful of cronies abusing the power vested in them. There isn't a single counterexample and about 2 dozen examples of genocidal communist regimes in the 20th century. How many more millions of corpses do you want to walk over, comrade?

There are just two types of communists:
1. Idiots;
2. Vermin.

Which type are you? Is it because you don't know better or is it because you're aware that you're trying to set the whole world ablaze? The first kind usually leaves communism when they start having responsibilities. The second kind leave communism in a body bag, though usually after decades of terrorizing their population.
 
Last edited:
Communism, on the other hand, has always made absolutely everyone miserable, save for a handful of cronies abusing the power vested in them.
This is so stupid that there is no answer to it...
 
Amazon has posted a job as an "information analyst" whose tasks should include searching for and analyzing threats from trade unions.
P.S. the Class struggle was invented by Karl Marx.

 
I agree, and I think that the illusion of the superiority of private industry that we have lived under for several decades is fading pretty quickly right now. Private industry can be exceptionally efficient at producing profit, but if the goal is to provide a universal service it's probably best left to the government.

You have that right

Corporations only exist.to produce profits to the detriment of everything else

And here in America we have allowed corporations to invest unlimited money into our political system

So now our elected officials tasked with regulating those corporations are instead owned by them

Republican voters worship the rich. They can do no wrong. Those deplorables are happy with the scraps off their table.
 
Private industry can be exceptionally efficient at producing profit, but if the goal is to provide a universal service it's probably best left to the government.

Well stated.
 
Private industry can be exceptionally efficient at producing profit, but if the goal is to provide a universal service it's probably best left to the government.

Well stated.

So it's settled. For any good or service which needs to be universal, socialism is the way to go.

Since food is universally necessary, do you both support eliminating private property in the means of production regarding food and replacing it with collective farms and government-run grocery stores?
 
We do not have an example of a thriving economy that doesn't admit some role for government intervention in the form of regulations, subsidy programs and welfare programs. Markets aren't perfect and you might justifiably hold that other things beside efficiency matter.

On the other hand, in most circumstances, they appear to be doing a better job. None of that should be controversial, especially not from the vintage point in which we find ourselves, being able to look back at the 20th century and the first two decades of the 21st century. "The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen" characterizes the relevant political space, with near anarchy on the one side and socialism on the other.

You have entirely too much faith in the profit motive producing the best results for the most people. All to often profits come at the expense of things like the air we breath and the water we drink and that is when there is not out right fraud involved. The value of Govt. employees that do the best job they can because they believe in what they do should not be underestimated either. Everything does not revolve around profit and it can also be the enemy like in health care where the quest for profit drives up costs and leaves people unprotected.
 
This is so stupid that there is no answer to it...

Cool this show us 1 country in the world. run by a communist government that isn't a **** hole?
 
You have entirely too much faith in the profit motive producing the best results for the most people. All to often profits come at the expense of things like the air we breath and the water we drink and that is when there is not out right fraud involved. The value of Govt. employees that do the best job they can because they believe in what they do should not be underestimated either. Everything does not revolve around profit and it can also be the enemy like in health care where the quest for profit drives up costs and leaves people unprotected.

The profit motive actually does produce the best results. If it doesn't then well I don't make profit and I go out of business.
You are confusing regulations and profit.

capitalism needs a frame work to operate. Those are called regulations. If everyone acted benevolent then regulations wouldn't be needed.
Companies would automatically take the steps needed to safe guard the environment etc ... FOr the most part they do but there are always bad actors.
Regulations are meant to punish the bad actors.

In a fully capitalized healthcare system costs would be way down. We do not have a fully capitalized healthcare system.
We have a very heavily regulated one that is highly controlled by the government.

That is what is driving up the cost of healthcare.

One thing that will help is changing the patent rules so that just because you add a new feature does not renew the pantent.
You get 20 years that is it. after that it is up for grabs on the open market and anyone can make it.

There are some changes that are needed but government is 80% of the issue in healthcare and how hospitals and insurance companies operate
are the other 20%.
 
I agree, and I think that the illusion of the superiority of private industry that we have lived under for several decades is fading pretty quickly right now. Private industry can be exceptionally efficient at producing profit, but if the goal is to provide a universal service it's probably best left to the government.
Mr. Peanut, to what extent of probability governments are the superior solutions, should be considered in specific individual or categories of cases.
l don’t believe that I’m a lesser proponent of free enterprise; (i.e. market participants equitably competing in markets of ideas or goods, but there are other no less valid concepts to be considered. There’s often substantial justifications of governments’ regulating utilities, and/or vital industries, and/or financial entities within their jurisdictions.
Two examples:
Due to the economies of scale, utility or other services and functions as formed as monopolies or oligopolies are often a good way to go. But the great power of those that can exercise determine or influence controls of such wealth and power are a danger to our society. If it’s down to choices between a few great corporations or a democratic republic’s government, I often, (not always) choose the government as more answerable to their populations’ (while I often continue to be apprehensive in regard to those we elect or otherwise permit to influence and control our governments). There’s substantial justifications of governments’ operating, or regulating utilities and financial entities within their jurisdictions.

Corporations operating prisons have too often undermined the justice and law enforcement system they lobby. Increasing those corporate profits due to increasing numbers of prisoners, or regard for costs per prisoner with less regard for all consequential costs to our society prior and after sentencing, during imprisonment and after prisoners are released, cannot be easily considered and drafted into government contracts with corporate operators of prisons. Our experiences with contracting out military, and/or law-enforcement, and/or prisoning functions, seem to indicate that regardless of cost-savings, such contracts should require very high degrees of government “checks and balances”. The costs and difficulties of establishing adequate government properly monitoring of such contracts too often would leave no real financial benefits from such government outsourcing.
Respectfully, Supposn
 
The profit motive actually does produce the best results. If it doesn't then well I don't make profit and I go out of business.
You are confusing regulations anto operate. Those are called regulations. If everyone acted benevolent then regulations wouldn't be needed.
Companies would automaticallyd profit.

capitalism needs a frame work take the steps needed to safe guard the environment etc ... For the most part they do but there are always bad actors.
Regulations are meant to punish the bad actors.
In a fully capitalized healthcare system costs would be way down. We do not have a fully capitalized healthcare system.
We have a very heavily regulated one that is highly controlled by the government.
That is what is driving up the cost of healthcare. ... There are some changes that are needed but government is 80% of the issue in healthcare and how hospitals and insurance companies operate
are the other 20%.
Ludin, we have to reduce the cost of medical insurance to those persons or enterprises directly or indirectly paying the medical insurance companies; (i.e. the purchasers). Transcribed from the General Political Forum/Health Care:
Can Democrats and Republicans agree upon anything to reduce medical insurance costs?
Medical insurances' annual fees per patient may make some financial sense, but annual deductibles are nonsense. We do not want to discourage people from seeking preventative and screening medical services that are reasonably applicable to their current medical rather than their financial conditions.

Deferring such reasonable preventative and screening procedures can lead to some individuals' future death, and/or catastrophic disabilities and their treatments' costs. Reluctance to pay for such procedures is economically and financially and socially contra-productive to our nation and our population.
Regardless of whatever shall be our nation's future healthcare policies, it would be prudent for the federal government to require all approved Affordable Care Act, (ACA) policies should prohibit any annual deductibles before their coverages “kick-in”.

I suppose that some government and non-government insurance plans have identified some reasonable preventative and screening conditions and procedures for which there's no patients' out-of-pocket costs.
We should consider federal government formally compiling and updating an expanded book of all items for which all ACA approved policies would be prohibited from charging out-of-pocket costs.

Some portion of costs for all (government or non-government) ACA approved medical insurers costs due to items within the federal book of no out-of-pocket reasonable preventative and screening conditions and procedures items' costs should be federally subsidized.
Similarly, the government should provide catastrophic medical cost insurance for both insured or uninsured individual legal residents' entitlements;(Hospitals need such reimbursed even for non-insured patients).

These federal direct and indirect medical insurance subsidies should be charged to a general rather than to any more specific medical item in the federal Budget; (not directly charged as a Medicare, or Medicaid, or veterans or CHIPs cost items).
These government subsidies would reduce these costs attributed to all ACA approved medical insurance plans and can be considered by state regulators of medical insurance prices. Respectfully, Supposn
 
... One thing that will help is changing the patent rules so that just because you add a new feature does not renew the patent. You get 20 years that is it. after that it is up for grabs on the open market and anyone can make it. ...
Ludin, we apparently agree. U.S. prescription drugs remaining patent durations shouldn’t begin being reduction during their trial periods, but rather when they can be legally prescribed in the United States.
Patent and copyright law’s purpose is to encourage dissemination of new products and ideas while protecting the rights of their creators. It’s not an eternal right.

Those improving a formula or device, should not entitle renewal of the underlying product’s patent or copyright applied for date. If there remains a market for the unapproved product, it should be in the public domain when it’s patent or copyright expires. Respectfully, Supposn
 
Ludin, we apparently agree. U.S. prescription drugs remaining patent durations shouldn’t begin being reduction during their trial periods, but rather when they can be legally prescribed in the United States.
Patent and copyright law’s purpose is to encourage dissemination of new products and ideas while protecting the rights of their creators. It’s not an eternal right.

Those improving a formula or device, should not entitle renewal of the underlying product’s patent or copyright applied for date. If there remains a market for the unapproved product, it should be in the public domain when it’s patent or copyright expires. Respectfully, Supposn

there are huge issues with patent law right now and fair use policies.
 
There were 3 types of capitalism: 12 hours a day for workers, which Marx criticized. Lasted until WWII. Then several decades of recovery growth after the terrible world war. Then immediately financial capitalism with the robbery of the future and the Matrix. Which one do you like?
Adepts of capitalism who wince at crises, unemployment, falling currencies, but continue to believe in Capital, hate "banksters", adore "private initiative" - get rid of schizophrenia. 21st century capitalism -financial capitalism, no other is possible anymore.
 
Last edited:
This is the thing... Marx is not a science fiction writer, who invented an alternate reality in his head. Marx is a scientist who described the laws of reality in which we all live. With Marx, without Marx, the development of humanity proceeds naturally to a classless society. That's it.
 
The market responds to demand, right? So, now, in addition to the demand for iPhones and other bells and whistles, there is a serious demand for real Social Justice.
Why doesn't the market offer it?
Ringo Stalin, within a democratic -republic, elections of officials advocating what we consider to be in our nation’s best interests, should be among the primary methods of indicating our aspirations. There’s not an apparent sufficiently large national polarity of voters that are proponents of both free I-phones and/or increased public taxes or debts to pay for them; there’s not apparently a large plurality of national voters sharing YOUR aspirations for our nation.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
I agree, and I think that the illusion of the superiority of private industry that we have lived under for several decades is fading pretty quickly right now. Private industry can be exceptionally efficient at producing profit, but if the goal is to provide a universal service it's probably best left to the government.

The two are not mutually exclusive. One can have a single (public) payer while still having private ownership of the means of production (DoD and Medicaid are prime examples).

Obviously, the goal is to have everyone live in adequate housing, but is that best achieved by having everyone live in publicly owned housing or by offering (public) “safety net” assistance to those unable (or unwilling) to provide private housing for themselves and their dependents?
 
Ludin, I believe you and I agree on this. The primary advantage of denying extension of an expiring patent, while granting a patent to an improvement of what was originally patented, is (hopefully): (1) Reduction of prices for the unimproved device while still granting the patent holder whatever price increases the markets are willing to pay for the improvement, (2) Encouraging more competitive innovations and improvements of items that now are entirely owned by the owner of the otherwise expiring patent.

Isn't our patent laws' purposes for disseminating information sooner than otherwise while still protecting and encouraging creators and innovators? Dont we want to encourage the use of the most suitable products for every application regarding those products' attributes and costs?
Respectfully, Supposn
Ludin, we apparently agree. U.S. prescription drugs remaining patent durations shouldn’t begin being reduction during their trial periods, but rather when they can be legally prescribed in the United States.
Patent and copyright law’s purpose is to encourage dissemination of new products and ideas while protecting the rights of their creators. It’s not an eternal right.

Those improving a formula or device, should not entitle renewal of the underlying product’s patent or copyright applied for date. If there remains a market for the unapproved product, it should be in the public domain when it’s patent or copyright expires. Respectfully, Supposn
 
Private industry is not always the superior solution:

There are people that believe “government’s the problem rather than solution. I heard Milton Friedman state that half of what our federal government’s spending is wasted. A great proportion of all other than federal spending, (including commercial and personal spending) is also “wasted”.

We, as individuals generally believe that governments’ spending for what we approve of, to the extent that’s spent in manners that we approve of, is justifiable; all other governments’ spending is less than justifiable. That’s politics. There are extremely few items of governments expense that are not controversial. Governments’ lines of expenses are criticized or subject to objections by some aggregate individuals or groups. Political disagreement occurs more so in democracies but also occurs within nations of only one political party or of extremely few leaders.

Outsourcing some specific government functions would be contrary to the public’s interest. There are some government functions that can be outsourced, but government rather than private industry provides them in a superior manner. Many other nations provide their population Wi-Fi, medical insurance, railroads and other public transportation at lesser expense and in a manner superior to that of the United States. It’s nonsense to contend that private industry does or will perform every function in a manner superior to government.

Respectfully, Supposn
Marketing. Capitalism is the only way for america. We are told that over and over and over. The supposed job creators who bless us with permission to work for them getting basically nowhere ourselves but helping those with have more and our government helps with their insistence that helping companies helps the average person. When ten percent of the world's population owns ninety percent of the world's money, something is out of balance. We the people have no idea of how much black money is spent but my guess is it's billions and billions each and every year on military stuff as if we don't have enough capacity to kill the world a thousand times over. Capitalism as far as I'm concerned allows those with a license to steal even more. It isn't individual people who screw up america, it's those with that do it.
 
When ten percent of the world's population owns ninety percent of the world's money, something is out of balance. We the people have no idea of how much black money is spent but my guess is it's billions and billions each and every year on military stuff as if we don't have enough capacity to kill the world a thousand times over.

I love how you condemn capitalism by using an example of the largest socialist institution in the country.
 
Back
Top Bottom