4 ms·

> In the case of private companies, unless the government intercedes, an organization that is inefficient and full of rent-seekers will soon be overtaken by spr

> In the case of private companies, unless the government intercedes, an organization that is inefficient and full of rent-seekers will soon be overtaken by spry rivals who focus on consumer benefits. That's the ideal, but in reality there are plenty of corrupt, inefficient companies - as anyone who has worked in a large company can tell you. Also, there is no ideal free market in existence: Politics always plays a role, and powerful market players dislike the competition of the free market and create barriers to entry and other unfair advantages for themselves. Even in the ideal, the 'free market' is a great tool but, like all tools it's not a universal one. For one thing, it needs to allow businesses and industries to fail; for another, it distributes goods to those most able to pay. For gaming software, that's fine. For health care, basic housing and food, police protection, and basic communication (the Internet), those are not acceptable outcomes. > In ordinary cases such a company would have gone belly up after shareholders lost faith and committed capital elsewhere. Instead, the government propped up GM with defense contracts, government contracts, and finally a bailout. It was government intervention that allowed rent-seeking by individuals to continue. Could you provide some basis for this version of events? As far as I know, which isn't much, GM used its enormous market power to survive; the car industry is hardly an ideal free market.

chii 9y ago
> For health care, basic housing and food, police protection, and basic communication (the Internet), those are not acceptable outcomes. just only 20 years ago, basic communication (the Internet) wasn't on that list. What amounts to minimum requirements seems to be growing, and can't possibily be supplied indefinitely to people ala basic income.
- forapurpose 9y ago
  > just only 20 years ago, basic communication (the Internet) wasn't on that list Communication was; in the U.S., phone service was subsidized for rural consumers, for example. Now Internet is the requirement. > What amounts to minimum requirements seems to be growing, and can't possibily be supplied indefinitely to people ala basic income. It's great that it's growing; I want the world and society to advance, not stagnate in the state it was 20 years ago. We're much better off than people 100 years ago (or 20 years ago), and it's on us to pass on that legacy and make sure the people 100 years from now are doing even better. Income and wealth are growing and have been almost continuously since WWII. The U.S. in 2017 is the wealthiest, highest-earning nation in the history of the world, with ~$90 trillion in wealth and ~$18 trillion in income. Taxes relative to income are at historical lows. The notion of scarcity in public goods is not based on fact; though of course there are limits, we are nowhere near them.
- throw2016 9y ago
  You treat people as some sort of adversary. How much productivity and innovation can be unleashed by a well educated healthy population not reduced to fighting for basic survival. This is a future that capitalism with its self congratulatory 'winners' and survival of the fittest race to the bottom cannot envision or enable. On the contrary it actively thwarts these possibilities by empowering and creating incentives for a self absorbed minority to sustain a system that benefits the top layer. Human beings are not a cost, they are an asset.
- sharemywin 9y ago
  it's funny we now expect both parents to work but then childcare isn't on the list of basic needs. by definition a minimum wage job can't afford to pay for child care without some kind of help.

chii 9y ago

> For health care, basic housing and food, police protection, and basic communication (the Internet), those are not acceptable outcomes. just only 20 years ago, basic communication (the Internet) wasn't on that list. What amounts to minimum requirements seems to be growing, and can't possibily be supplied indefinitely to people ala basic income.

forapurpose 9y ago
> just only 20 years ago, basic communication (the Internet) wasn't on that list Communication was; in the U.S., phone service was subsidized for rural consumers, for example. Now Internet is the requirement. > What amounts to minimum requirements seems to be growing, and can't possibily be supplied indefinitely to people ala basic income. It's great that it's growing; I want the world and society to advance, not stagnate in the state it was 20 years ago. We're much better off than people 100 years ago (or 20 years ago), and it's on us to pass on that legacy and make sure the people 100 years from now are doing even better. Income and wealth are growing and have been almost continuously since WWII. The U.S. in 2017 is the wealthiest, highest-earning nation in the history of the world, with ~$90 trillion in wealth and ~$18 trillion in income. Taxes relative to income are at historical lows. The notion of scarcity in public goods is not based on fact; though of course there are limits, we are nowhere near them.
throw2016 9y ago
You treat people as some sort of adversary. How much productivity and innovation can be unleashed by a well educated healthy population not reduced to fighting for basic survival. This is a future that capitalism with its self congratulatory 'winners' and survival of the fittest race to the bottom cannot envision or enable. On the contrary it actively thwarts these possibilities by empowering and creating incentives for a self absorbed minority to sustain a system that benefits the top layer. Human beings are not a cost, they are an asset.
sharemywin 9y ago
it's funny we now expect both parents to work but then childcare isn't on the list of basic needs. by definition a minimum wage job can't afford to pay for child care without some kind of help.