5 ms·

Do you think a government bureaucracy (i.e. socialism) is a better arbiter of merit? For a more specific answer to your points, the free market is not a guaran

Do you think a government bureaucracy (i.e. socialism) is a better arbiter of merit? For a more specific answer to your points, the free market is not a guarantee. It's probabilities. There are no risk-free actions, and you're not doing "everything right" if you fail to take that into account.

LarryDarrell 9y ago
It doesn't matter what he thinks, what you think or what I think. What matters is how and when the anger of those being stepped on fully manifests itself. Anyone who wants to protect "Capitalism" really ought to be frantically doing everything they can do to promote UBI or at least Universal Health Care and Education.
- skookumchuck 9y ago
  Free K-12 doesn't count as universal education? And half of all expenditures on health care are spent by the government in all their various methods of handing out free health care.
  - freejulian 9y ago
    > Free K-12 doesn't count as universal education? No. K-12 doesn't qualify you for a job in the "modern economy." The sad thing is it's not even about the education: companies only look for the degree.
    - skookumchuck 9y ago
      You can get a free MIT education online, too. But of course that isn't good enough, either.
  - Broken_Hippo 9y ago
    Not when it isn't enough education to support yourself or get even a job requiring vocational education. It sometimes isn't enough on its own to go to universities in other countries. (The local university requires a certain number of AP courses with passing grades on the test or 1 year of university-level education to be considered eligible to go to school there if you are from the US). And not when it means that we aren't actually getting the best candidates for certain fields. To be a doctor, not only do you have to have the intellectual capability, but the financial ability as well. Yes, I know there are loans, but burdening folks with debt deters some folks from even trying... let alone the expenses required to apply and attend college.
    - skookumchuck 9y ago
      > isn't enough Nothing is ever enough. America has the richest poor people in history, and yet it's a crisis that they aren't even richer.
      - Broken_Hippo 9y ago
        In this case, it is measurable. You can have enough education to get a decent job, even if some of that education is optional. Minimally, you can make sure that your basic average education is enough to be accepted into vocational through university level education without the need to take remedial classes so long as you go right after high school. You can make sure there are enough nursing schools to meet demand and make sure folks aren't avoiding certain fields because the education is too expensive for the salary they will be making (a lawyer wanting to be a public defender or criminal lawyer, for example, or even a doctor for that matter). I think if we were using taxpayer money for these education, there would also be more interest in making sure that the education requirements aren't filled with too much fluff that should be part of basic education or an option within basic education (we can, for example, have longer high school for college bound students than those going into a vocation).
        skookumchuck 9y ago
        > You can make sure Essentially you're arguing for a centrally planned economy, where bureaucrats decide and micromanage everything. Somehow, it never seems to work out very well, and they have to build walls to keep people from escaping.
        Broken_Hippo 9y ago
        Believe it or not, you can have standards without micromanaging everything. Making sure your average education allows for folks to move into vocational schools or universities without needing remedial education right after completing your basic education is hardly micromanaging. Making sure you have educational facilities for needed job paths is hardly micromanaging. Nor are bureaucracies all bad if they actually rely on facts and less on special interests.
rhino369 9y ago
I'm pretty conservative, not a socialist at all. The free market is better at allocating and exploting resources. But we shouldn't confuse that with allocating them "fairly" or "based on merit." A lot of the allocation is arbitratry and capricious. It's just the best we got. And I support a generally free market because I think overall even the losers are better under our capitalism than everyone would be under equal socialism. We just have to correct the flaws in capitalism, like fixing market failures and providing a saftey net for people.

LarryDarrell 9y ago

It doesn't matter what he thinks, what you think or what I think. What matters is how and when the anger of those being stepped on fully manifests itself. Anyone who wants to protect "Capitalism" really ought to be frantically doing everything they can do to promote UBI or at least Universal Health Care and Education.

skookumchuck 9y ago
Free K-12 doesn't count as universal education? And half of all expenditures on health care are spent by the government in all their various methods of handing out free health care.
- freejulian 9y ago
  > Free K-12 doesn't count as universal education? No. K-12 doesn't qualify you for a job in the "modern economy." The sad thing is it's not even about the education: companies only look for the degree.
  - skookumchuck 9y ago
    You can get a free MIT education online, too. But of course that isn't good enough, either.
- Broken_Hippo 9y ago
  Not when it isn't enough education to support yourself or get even a job requiring vocational education. It sometimes isn't enough on its own to go to universities in other countries. (The local university requires a certain number of AP courses with passing grades on the test or 1 year of university-level education to be considered eligible to go to school there if you are from the US). And not when it means that we aren't actually getting the best candidates for certain fields. To be a doctor, not only do you have to have the intellectual capability, but the financial ability as well. Yes, I know there are loans, but burdening folks with debt deters some folks from even trying... let alone the expenses required to apply and attend college.
  - skookumchuck 9y ago
    > isn't enough Nothing is ever enough. America has the richest poor people in history, and yet it's a crisis that they aren't even richer.
    - Broken_Hippo 9y ago
      In this case, it is measurable. You can have enough education to get a decent job, even if some of that education is optional. Minimally, you can make sure that your basic average education is enough to be accepted into vocational through university level education without the need to take remedial classes so long as you go right after high school. You can make sure there are enough nursing schools to meet demand and make sure folks aren't avoiding certain fields because the education is too expensive for the salary they will be making (a lawyer wanting to be a public defender or criminal lawyer, for example, or even a doctor for that matter). I think if we were using taxpayer money for these education, there would also be more interest in making sure that the education requirements aren't filled with too much fluff that should be part of basic education or an option within basic education (we can, for example, have longer high school for college bound students than those going into a vocation).
      - skookumchuck 9y ago
        > You can make sure Essentially you're arguing for a centrally planned economy, where bureaucrats decide and micromanage everything. Somehow, it never seems to work out very well, and they have to build walls to keep people from escaping.
        Broken_Hippo 9y ago
        Believe it or not, you can have standards without micromanaging everything. Making sure your average education allows for folks to move into vocational schools or universities without needing remedial education right after completing your basic education is hardly micromanaging. Making sure you have educational facilities for needed job paths is hardly micromanaging. Nor are bureaucracies all bad if they actually rely on facts and less on special interests.

rhino369 9y ago

I'm pretty conservative, not a socialist at all. The free market is better at allocating and exploting resources. But we shouldn't confuse that with allocating them "fairly" or "based on merit." A lot of the allocation is arbitratry and capricious. It's just the best we got. And I support a generally free market because I think overall even the losers are better under our capitalism than everyone would be under equal socialism. We just have to correct the flaws in capitalism, like fixing market failures and providing a saftey net for people.