3 ms·

C can be a problem. It's how the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about is structured. "C" is what leads to things like corporate bail out

C can be a problem. It's how the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about is structured. "C" is what leads to things like corporate bail outs. Parenti talked about this with Conrail in the 80s. It was a train system that was put in public trust because it couldn't make money in the 70s. Then after the public made it profitable, under Reagan, it was reprivatized - not because it didn't work, but because it did work. "C" goes beyond this in corruption. You get "compromises" where you have private health-care paid by public taxes (obamacare) or medicare part D with prescriptions being covered but the government forbidden from negotiating the prices. Or you get private for-profit schools able to use government loans for tuition and getting to the corrupt state of affairs we have now. No, "C" is a terrible idea because it's a giant funnel into the hand of corrupt bank accounts - it promotes the state to prop up forms of dysfunctional capitalism. In fact if you look at the total tax burden by country, including state tax and other things (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates) You see that the US is higher than places like Luxembourg, Denmark, the Netherlands - way above France and the UK. We pay more and get less, and it's all because of "C".

rjbwork 10y ago
But all those other countries you mentioned are also C, in a way bigger way. The US leans more towards B, in actuality, versus those other countries. Are you saying A is the solution?
- kristopolous 10y ago
  Not really. If we can agree that people respond to incentives, then we should make sure the incentives of how we constitute civil society align with their purpose and that the purpose doesn't get perverted through gamesmanship. For instance, arguably schools are primarily for education. So increasing the access to and quality of education is probably a decent goal. For profit systems certainly have increased the access to, but arguably deceased the quality of, and arguably education is only incidental to the true project, which is profit.^1 It's this problem, where we entrust civic needs in private hands and hope the needs are satisfied incidentally. The problem with communism is that it's somewhat the same thing. Instead of economic capital, they fight for political capital using a similar perversion of incentives. I don't think there exists a Grand Unified Equation that works for all civic needs and I don't think that the best answers already exist. Instead, I think it should be openly and honestly researched like all other sciences and leave the sportsmanship and team cheering world it currently occupies. ---- [1] For-Profit schools may have their place. I don't know much about auto mechanics or plumbing, but I can imagine a certified for-profit program would be a fine way to do this. I can also imagine them cutting costs, paying off inspections, and passing everyone so nobody stops paying the tuition. The goal is to not make ripping people off and cheating them out of an education such a profitable and incentivized thing to do.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
AnthonyMouse 10y ago
Suppose we have the government build the roads. Are they also going to manufacture their own steamrollers and mine their own gravel all the way down the stack? If so you're at Pure Communism. If not then you still have exactly the same problems to deal with when the government goes to buy those things from private industry. The thing you're really criticizing is government corruption. A corrupt government will screw you no matter its ideology.
- kristopolous 10y ago
  Stepping back, it's the capital doing the corrupting. The private/public interplay creates incentives to pilfer the public coffers in exchange for campaign contributions if you stick around and a cushy job if you don't. It is the exploitation of government that is inherently corrupt and the exploiter who is the corrupter. The commingling of such interest leads to the pursuit of private profit in the name of the public trust. The calls for less government are constantly in the name of removing the watchdogs and observers, the enforcers and regulators - the only counterbalance to this incestuous relationship. They call for a removal of oversight to alleviate corruption and a forfeiture of authority and action to increase responsibility. The only perplexing thing is how so many continue to be startled and bewildered by the direct consequential policies of encouraging such statecraft.
NOSHSHNACKERS 10y ago
the USSR was an oligarchy not communism .. this is so 1997 FIDOnet.. ugh.

rjbwork 10y ago

But all those other countries you mentioned are also C, in a way bigger way. The US leans more towards B, in actuality, versus those other countries. Are you saying A is the solution?

kristopolous 10y ago
Not really. If we can agree that people respond to incentives, then we should make sure the incentives of how we constitute civil society align with their purpose and that the purpose doesn't get perverted through gamesmanship. For instance, arguably schools are primarily for education. So increasing the access to and quality of education is probably a decent goal. For profit systems certainly have increased the access to, but arguably deceased the quality of, and arguably education is only incidental to the true project, which is profit.^1 It's this problem, where we entrust civic needs in private hands and hope the needs are satisfied incidentally. The problem with communism is that it's somewhat the same thing. Instead of economic capital, they fight for political capital using a similar perversion of incentives. I don't think there exists a Grand Unified Equation that works for all civic needs and I don't think that the best answers already exist. Instead, I think it should be openly and honestly researched like all other sciences and leave the sportsmanship and team cheering world it currently occupies. ---- [1] For-Profit schools may have their place. I don't know much about auto mechanics or plumbing, but I can imagine a certified for-profit program would be a fine way to do this. I can also imagine them cutting costs, paying off inspections, and passing everyone so nobody stops paying the tuition. The goal is to not make ripping people off and cheating them out of an education such a profitable and incentivized thing to do.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

AnthonyMouse 10y ago

Suppose we have the government build the roads. Are they also going to manufacture their own steamrollers and mine their own gravel all the way down the stack? If so you're at Pure Communism. If not then you still have exactly the same problems to deal with when the government goes to buy those things from private industry. The thing you're really criticizing is government corruption. A corrupt government will screw you no matter its ideology.

kristopolous 10y ago
Stepping back, it's the capital doing the corrupting. The private/public interplay creates incentives to pilfer the public coffers in exchange for campaign contributions if you stick around and a cushy job if you don't. It is the exploitation of government that is inherently corrupt and the exploiter who is the corrupter. The commingling of such interest leads to the pursuit of private profit in the name of the public trust. The calls for less government are constantly in the name of removing the watchdogs and observers, the enforcers and regulators - the only counterbalance to this incestuous relationship. They call for a removal of oversight to alleviate corruption and a forfeiture of authority and action to increase responsibility. The only perplexing thing is how so many continue to be startled and bewildered by the direct consequential policies of encouraging such statecraft.

NOSHSHNACKERS 10y ago

the USSR was an oligarchy not communism .. this is so 1997 FIDOnet.. ugh.