5 ms·

Everything you've said is true, however all you've done is given the state the responsibility of deciding what part of the avalanche of advice is good and what

Everything you've said is true, however all you've done is given the state the responsibility of deciding what part of the avalanche of advice is good and what part is bad.

steve-benjamins 10y ago
Which might be sensible. As OP has suggested, the state may be better than the market at this.
- ekianjo 10y ago
  Except when its not. Not talking about Finland here, but the amount of poor decisions in many areas related to welfare would suggest that mor often than not its a pretty bad idea to trust the state.
  - deong 10y ago
    It requires the ability to govern one's selves effectively, which we in the US have proven beyond all doubt we're not capable of doing.
SamBam 10y ago
The state is not out to make a profit. And you forget that in Scandinavian countries, the state is generally considered to be trusted by the citizens.
- spacehome 10y ago
  Have those governments done more to earn that trust? I'm honestly asking. All I know is that I'm American, and I know mine hasn't.
  - duderific 10y ago
    The United States were born out of inherent distrust of authority. That distrust continues on to the present, at our own peril in many cases (inability to have true national health care for example). Other countries do not necessarily have that same history and so the trust does not need to be earned; it was probably already there in the first place (at least moreso than the US.)
    - spacehome 10y ago
      There's a significant fraction of Americans (myself included) who don't want their government to be in charge of healthcare. Don't assume that the lack thereof indicates an inability. Ninja Edit: I'm not going into the reasons why because that's not what this is about.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - jdavis703 10y ago
        In charge of your health care or in charge of health care in general?
        spacehome 10y ago
        Both, probably. I've heard the argument that because health care (or insurance) is a necessity of life so it should be provided by the government. Why doesn't the same principle apply to food?
        chrismonsanto 10y ago
        > Why doesn't the same principle apply to food? It does, as well as access to water and shelter. Did you think universal health care was the "final boss"?
        vertex-four 10y ago
        Actually... the Government heavily subsidises food and water. They don't go further because that'd be socialism and scare people.
cromulent 10y ago
It's still your responsibility, even in Nordic countries :) All the state does is run the numbers and make sure the kid has what it needs, even if the parents have problems of some kind or another.
nxcho 10y ago
People in the nordic countries including Finland have more trust in government authorities and public administration compared to for example Americans. A government agency given the task to given the task to produce some kind of recommendation of best practices is expected to do so reasonably well.
- jdavis703 10y ago
  Nordic countries are the size of American cities, or at least metropolitan areas. I can tell you I have a lot more trust in the mayor and city council than I do in the president and my senators (even though I voted for all of them). If most government functions occurred at a more regional level I'm pretty sure Americans would have more trust too. I think SF (for all its problems) is doing a good job showing what can be done at a local level. It's telling that at least in SF politicians are talking about fixing poverty, while this discussion never really even comes up at the federal level, especially this election season.
  - dsfyu404ed 10y ago
    That's a two way street. There's huge parts of the country where government at every level is regarded as corrupt and dysfunctional. When a higher authority (fed > state > town > individual departments > subgroup within a dept.) has to tell the offending institution to step in line it's usually very welcome. People being screwed tend to place their trust in the other parts of the government stack (the parts that haven't screwed them yet).
    - adamsea 10y ago
      Agreed. Take Flint, Michigan for example.
  - laurencerowe 10y ago
    While SF politicians seem to mean well, I have little confidence in the ability of the SF City Council to deliver as it is just a small part of the larger metropolitan area. Bay Area housing and transport problems can only be solved at a metropolitan level. Compare to New York and London which have political bodies covering the majority of their metropolitan areas. This enables them override the nimbyism and beggar-thy-neighbour policies of most Bay Area municipalities. Frankly, expectations for what government can achieve just seem far too low here. California seems constitutionally hobbled.
bbctol 10y ago
I'll take the government's advice over the advice of a profit-driven business nine times out of ten.
__jal 10y ago
Which works in nations where citizens take responsibility for their politics. In the U.S., we simply don't do that. ("Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.") To paint with a hugely broad brush, political problem-solving here is frequently about hurting others or the political version of Make.Money.Fast. schemes; in Nordic countries, politics is generally a lot more boring, but focused on actually fixing things.

Everything you've said is true, however all you've done is given the state the responsibility of deciding what part of the avalanche of advice is good and what part is bad.

steve-benjamins 10y ago

Which might be sensible. As OP has suggested, the state may be better than the market at this.

ekianjo 10y ago
Except when its not. Not talking about Finland here, but the amount of poor decisions in many areas related to welfare would suggest that mor often than not its a pretty bad idea to trust the state.
- deong 10y ago
  It requires the ability to govern one's selves effectively, which we in the US have proven beyond all doubt we're not capable of doing.

SamBam 10y ago

The state is not out to make a profit. And you forget that in Scandinavian countries, the state is generally considered to be trusted by the citizens.

spacehome 10y ago
Have those governments done more to earn that trust? I'm honestly asking. All I know is that I'm American, and I know mine hasn't.
- duderific 10y ago
  The United States were born out of inherent distrust of authority. That distrust continues on to the present, at our own peril in many cases (inability to have true national health care for example). Other countries do not necessarily have that same history and so the trust does not need to be earned; it was probably already there in the first place (at least moreso than the US.)
  - spacehome 10y ago
    There's a significant fraction of Americans (myself included) who don't want their government to be in charge of healthcare. Don't assume that the lack thereof indicates an inability. Ninja Edit: I'm not going into the reasons why because that's not what this is about.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - jdavis703 10y ago
      In charge of your health care or in charge of health care in general?
      - spacehome 10y ago
        Both, probably. I've heard the argument that because health care (or insurance) is a necessity of life so it should be provided by the government. Why doesn't the same principle apply to food?
        chrismonsanto 10y ago
        > Why doesn't the same principle apply to food? It does, as well as access to water and shelter. Did you think universal health care was the "final boss"?
        vertex-four 10y ago
        Actually... the Government heavily subsidises food and water. They don't go further because that'd be socialism and scare people.

cromulent 10y ago

It's still your responsibility, even in Nordic countries :) All the state does is run the numbers and make sure the kid has what it needs, even if the parents have problems of some kind or another.

nxcho 10y ago

People in the nordic countries including Finland have more trust in government authorities and public administration compared to for example Americans. A government agency given the task to given the task to produce some kind of recommendation of best practices is expected to do so reasonably well.

jdavis703 10y ago
Nordic countries are the size of American cities, or at least metropolitan areas. I can tell you I have a lot more trust in the mayor and city council than I do in the president and my senators (even though I voted for all of them). If most government functions occurred at a more regional level I'm pretty sure Americans would have more trust too. I think SF (for all its problems) is doing a good job showing what can be done at a local level. It's telling that at least in SF politicians are talking about fixing poverty, while this discussion never really even comes up at the federal level, especially this election season.
- dsfyu404ed 10y ago
  That's a two way street. There's huge parts of the country where government at every level is regarded as corrupt and dysfunctional. When a higher authority (fed > state > town > individual departments > subgroup within a dept.) has to tell the offending institution to step in line it's usually very welcome. People being screwed tend to place their trust in the other parts of the government stack (the parts that haven't screwed them yet).
  - adamsea 10y ago
    Agreed. Take Flint, Michigan for example.
- laurencerowe 10y ago
  While SF politicians seem to mean well, I have little confidence in the ability of the SF City Council to deliver as it is just a small part of the larger metropolitan area. Bay Area housing and transport problems can only be solved at a metropolitan level. Compare to New York and London which have political bodies covering the majority of their metropolitan areas. This enables them override the nimbyism and beggar-thy-neighbour policies of most Bay Area municipalities. Frankly, expectations for what government can achieve just seem far too low here. California seems constitutionally hobbled.

bbctol 10y ago

I'll take the government's advice over the advice of a profit-driven business nine times out of ten.

__jal 10y ago

Which works in nations where citizens take responsibility for their politics. In the U.S., we simply don't do that. ("Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.") To paint with a hugely broad brush, political problem-solving here is frequently about hurting others or the political version of Make.Money.Fast. schemes; in Nordic countries, politics is generally a lot more boring, but focused on actually fixing things.