4 ms·

Are you proposing the the government directly provide these services? No thanks. You're providing an alternative to UBI without providing any explanation of why

Are you proposing the the government directly provide these services? No thanks. You're providing an alternative to UBI without providing any explanation of why it would be superior, while ignoring the very real impact which competition has on lowering costs and increasing quality. What is the benefit of that? Generally, government services are inferior to those provided by the market. Just take a sample of public housing or government cheese to see why having the government provision services is suboptimal. If the government wants to get into these businesses, it should do so as a non-profit corporation directly competing with private sector alternatives. Then we can see if government cheese is actually more desirable than private alternatives. > in a market society there are winners and there are losers, and at least under the guaranteed service mechanism, the losers aren't mired in poverty. UBI would be a market solution and could still prevent losers. Poverty reduction and personal choice are not mutually exclusive. What you're proposing has been tried before and failed.

contingencies 10y ago
the very real impact which competition has on lowering costs and increasing quality. Oh please, what fallacy. Here on HN you have neoliberal truisms like this being repeated, at the same time as articles about celebrated icons of American capitalism clearly stating that in business they always seek to establish monopolies and that competition is for losers. As an example of how fallacious this line of bullshit is, look at what privatization and 'competition' did to Australian telecommunications (instantly bought by foreigners, now a national security threat... some of the most expensive internet in the western world... metered downloads in 2016... new government program to fund infrastructure is broken down in to a government-pays, private-industry profits model... fiber is virtually unheard of, and is exceptionally difficult to acquire even eg. for a relative who lives right opposite the Sydney Opera House in central Sydney!) Whereas, here in China everyone can have fiber and a flat screen and a mobile phone for almost nothing, and they had no infrastructure at all 20 years ago.
- morgante 10y ago
  > Here on HN you have neoliberal truisms like this being repeated, at the same time as articles about celebrated icons of American capitalism clearly stating that in business they always seek to establish monopolies and that competition is for losers. The fact that you don't understand how those are literally two sides of the same coin shows how limited your understanding of economics is. Competition driving down prices is precisely why as a businessman I want to avoid it and establish a monopoly. Since you lack even the critical thinking skills or economic understanding to see how monopoly benefiting businesses and hurting consumers is entirely self-consistent, it's not really worth arguing with you much more. I'll just point out that we have numerous examples of competition benefiting consumers. For example, airline deregulation has led to a sharp reduction in ticket prices. In the unfortunate cases where supposed "privatization" has had ill effects, if you look below the surface it's usually the case that the underlying market is anything but free. For example, internet service where only incumbent providers are allowed to offer operate and new entrants are barred from entrance while costs are subsidized by taxpayers. I suspect that the Australian telecommunications industry falls into that category.
  - contingencies 10y ago
    two sides of the same coin Actually, I was describing the progression from government run to "competition wins!" to commercial actors to commercial actors barring competition. Net result: effectively replaced something government owned (accountable to people, non-profit motive) with something privately operated (accountable to investors, sole profit motive). But you seem to have missed that, instead spending three paragraphs attacking your perception of my person.
    - morgante 10y ago
      Where is this eloquent description of that? All you did was try to imply that monopoly-seeking and competition are incompatible. Incentives are fundamental to human behavior. Corporations will automatically try to seek a monopoly position, but if the government isn't involved they can only maintain it until a superior alternative is created (see: Facebook supplanting MySpace).
rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
Just to clarify, I didn't say the government should provide such services, but rather invest heavily in the cheapening of such services, such that the private sector can provide them at such a low cost that they become trivial expenses. For example, subsidized agricultural research results in cheaper food, but the government isn't responsible for growing crops or distributing them.

contingencies 10y ago

the very real impact which competition has on lowering costs and increasing quality. Oh please, what fallacy. Here on HN you have neoliberal truisms like this being repeated, at the same time as articles about celebrated icons of American capitalism clearly stating that in business they always seek to establish monopolies and that competition is for losers. As an example of how fallacious this line of bullshit is, look at what privatization and 'competition' did to Australian telecommunications (instantly bought by foreigners, now a national security threat... some of the most expensive internet in the western world... metered downloads in 2016... new government program to fund infrastructure is broken down in to a government-pays, private-industry profits model... fiber is virtually unheard of, and is exceptionally difficult to acquire even eg. for a relative who lives right opposite the Sydney Opera House in central Sydney!) Whereas, here in China everyone can have fiber and a flat screen and a mobile phone for almost nothing, and they had no infrastructure at all 20 years ago.

morgante 10y ago
> Here on HN you have neoliberal truisms like this being repeated, at the same time as articles about celebrated icons of American capitalism clearly stating that in business they always seek to establish monopolies and that competition is for losers. The fact that you don't understand how those are literally two sides of the same coin shows how limited your understanding of economics is. Competition driving down prices is precisely why as a businessman I want to avoid it and establish a monopoly. Since you lack even the critical thinking skills or economic understanding to see how monopoly benefiting businesses and hurting consumers is entirely self-consistent, it's not really worth arguing with you much more. I'll just point out that we have numerous examples of competition benefiting consumers. For example, airline deregulation has led to a sharp reduction in ticket prices. In the unfortunate cases where supposed "privatization" has had ill effects, if you look below the surface it's usually the case that the underlying market is anything but free. For example, internet service where only incumbent providers are allowed to offer operate and new entrants are barred from entrance while costs are subsidized by taxpayers. I suspect that the Australian telecommunications industry falls into that category.
- contingencies 10y ago
  two sides of the same coin Actually, I was describing the progression from government run to "competition wins!" to commercial actors to commercial actors barring competition. Net result: effectively replaced something government owned (accountable to people, non-profit motive) with something privately operated (accountable to investors, sole profit motive). But you seem to have missed that, instead spending three paragraphs attacking your perception of my person.
  - morgante 10y ago
    Where is this eloquent description of that? All you did was try to imply that monopoly-seeking and competition are incompatible. Incentives are fundamental to human behavior. Corporations will automatically try to seek a monopoly position, but if the government isn't involved they can only maintain it until a superior alternative is created (see: Facebook supplanting MySpace).

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago

Just to clarify, I didn't say the government should provide such services, but rather invest heavily in the cheapening of such services, such that the private sector can provide them at such a low cost that they become trivial expenses. For example, subsidized agricultural research results in cheaper food, but the government isn't responsible for growing crops or distributing them.