3 ms·

I kind of hate how people on the right can cut government funding and then turn around and complain that the underfunded programs are functioning poorly.

nickjarboe 10y ago
Sort of like how sometimes when government tries to solve a problem with a certain program and, if the problem gets worse, the solution suggested (and often tried) is to give even more resources to the program instead of trying a different program with different people.
- popinman322 10y ago
  Run option A in one location, and option B in another, then see which works better? Of course the key would be to replicate the results in other locations to make sure the "better" option actually pans out. Are there any policies that were built this way?
  - NoGravitas 10y ago
    In a sense, the US states are supposed to work this way. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis described them as "[Laboratories of Democracy][0]". For example, the health care system governor Romney instituted in Massachusetts (Romneycare) was moderately successful, and was adapted to nationwide use as the ACA (Obamacare). However, you can never really control for differences between the states, which means weak predictive value, and it's easy to argue about results. And given that the policies we're talking about are inherently political, facts and evidence don't necessarily contribute to policymaking. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratories_of_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratories_of_democracy
- eastWestMath 10y ago
  I dunno, I'm pretty happy in a country where all the major universities are public and the healthcare system is socialized.
stale2002 10y ago
The great thing about for profit options is that you don't have to fund them at all. A good government option shouldn't require ANY funding at all. It should pay for itself.
- BoiledCabbage 10y ago
  The bad thing about for profit options is that they often don't work in the best interests of the consumer. Particularly egregiously when being granted a monopoly.
- michaelmrose 10y ago
  Why? The government may wish to - provide a service that pays for itself only indirectly in the long run like investing in its citizenry and their well being. - price a service below cost to enable the citizens who most need the service to actually benefit from it - serve the entire citizenry not just those profitable to serve What these have in common is that they represent a transfer of value from those who have more to society as a whole. This is pretty much how every decent functional society in existence works at scale. Virtually nothing the government does "pays for itself" because economic systems while useful are so bizarrely insufficient by themselves that I'm not sure I have words to express it. They suffer from insufficient information, outright corruption and outright failure to encode most of what is most worthwhile in dollars, cents, and incentives. Those who believe in capitalism alone seem to be appealing to some bizarre pure state of nature that has never existed will never exist. Meanwhile ignoring the fact that everything about capitalism as practiced anywhere on Earth is a wholly artificial mashup of perverse incentives, short time thinking, rules, regulations, and customs based in part of what can be exploited, in part on what people think is right, and in part on what people think is useful. Given that capitalism is as artificial construct as opposed to some ideal state its easy to argue that we the people ought to use our political power transfer wealth from the haves to increase the health and well being of society as a whole. Because of this government options will often be aligned with what society as a whole can afford and will benefit from in the long run as opposed to what those directly benefiting right now can support out of pocket.

nickjarboe 10y ago

Sort of like how sometimes when government tries to solve a problem with a certain program and, if the problem gets worse, the solution suggested (and often tried) is to give even more resources to the program instead of trying a different program with different people.

popinman322 10y ago
Run option A in one location, and option B in another, then see which works better? Of course the key would be to replicate the results in other locations to make sure the "better" option actually pans out. Are there any policies that were built this way?
- NoGravitas 10y ago
  In a sense, the US states are supposed to work this way. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis described them as "[Laboratories of Democracy][0]". For example, the health care system governor Romney instituted in Massachusetts (Romneycare) was moderately successful, and was adapted to nationwide use as the ACA (Obamacare). However, you can never really control for differences between the states, which means weak predictive value, and it's easy to argue about results. And given that the policies we're talking about are inherently political, facts and evidence don't necessarily contribute to policymaking. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratories_of_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratories_of_democracy
eastWestMath 10y ago
I dunno, I'm pretty happy in a country where all the major universities are public and the healthcare system is socialized.

stale2002 10y ago

The great thing about for profit options is that you don't have to fund them at all. A good government option shouldn't require ANY funding at all. It should pay for itself.

BoiledCabbage 10y ago
The bad thing about for profit options is that they often don't work in the best interests of the consumer. Particularly egregiously when being granted a monopoly.
michaelmrose 10y ago
Why? The government may wish to - provide a service that pays for itself only indirectly in the long run like investing in its citizenry and their well being. - price a service below cost to enable the citizens who most need the service to actually benefit from it - serve the entire citizenry not just those profitable to serve What these have in common is that they represent a transfer of value from those who have more to society as a whole. This is pretty much how every decent functional society in existence works at scale. Virtually nothing the government does "pays for itself" because economic systems while useful are so bizarrely insufficient by themselves that I'm not sure I have words to express it. They suffer from insufficient information, outright corruption and outright failure to encode most of what is most worthwhile in dollars, cents, and incentives. Those who believe in capitalism alone seem to be appealing to some bizarre pure state of nature that has never existed will never exist. Meanwhile ignoring the fact that everything about capitalism as practiced anywhere on Earth is a wholly artificial mashup of perverse incentives, short time thinking, rules, regulations, and customs based in part of what can be exploited, in part on what people think is right, and in part on what people think is useful. Given that capitalism is as artificial construct as opposed to some ideal state its easy to argue that we the people ought to use our political power transfer wealth from the haves to increase the health and well being of society as a whole. Because of this government options will often be aligned with what society as a whole can afford and will benefit from in the long run as opposed to what those directly benefiting right now can support out of pocket.