5 ms·

Most of the time if you think something is that simple, you're leaving something out. It's a myth that the private sector is inherently more efficient than pub

Most of the time if you think something is that simple, you're leaving something out. It's a myth that the private sector is inherently more efficient than public sector. You only need to compare healthcare systems across developed countries to find an enormous counterexample. Government has a different system of accountability than private industry, sometimes it's less efficient, but sometimes it's more efficient. It depends--there's nothing simple about it.

slphil 9y ago
Healthcare is an obvious exception, and religiously fundamentalist capitalists won't admit to that, but the reason is simple. Healthcare has virtually infinite demand, and the demand for more expensive solutions is intense. It is one of the few sectors of the economy where traditional capitalist price optimization algorithms don't function properly. I wish people would admit this and move towards more rational healthcare considerations, but I also wish people would stop using obvious exceptions to argue against rules. (Healthcare is also an ethical battleground in a sense that many industries never can be. Should a hospital administrator be willing to spend a million dollars to save one life, or should that money go to equipment that could save more lives? The answer seems obvious, but most people react with a sort of justifiable horror at the thought of letting some poor child die so the hospital can buy some new machines.)
- learc83 9y ago
  Defense, transportation infrastructure, and scientific research are just a few other areas were the rules fall apart. There are many more. Maybe there aren't any near univeral rules and we should look at thinks on a case by case basis.
  - slphil 9y ago
    Defense and infrastructure are inherently the responsibility of the state. I'm not a small-government libertarian. Market forces should be used here whenever possible (military-industrial complex, etc) but there obviously can't be competing national militaries or competing national highway systems. Scientific research: maybe, it depends. Innovation is complicated and there's no linear investment-to-payoff in research. People concerned with profit at least are discouraged by the profit motive from dumping huge amounts of money into failed research. At the same time, some critical research isn't market-profitable. Universal rules definitely exist in the form of things like supply/demand curves. I would rather live in a hardcore capitalist hellhole than in the shambles of a failed society that would result from the alternative. We should be wary of assuming that non-market intervention is necessary, but we shouldn't shy away from acting when that intervention is necessary.
    - learc83 9y ago
      >Universal rules definitely exist in the form of things like supply/demand curves. There are no universal rules for economics in reality. There are generally useful models, that often fail spectacularly. All the universal rules you can think of depend on simplifications that never actually hold--rational actors, perfect information, perfect competition etc... >I would rather live in a hardcore capitalist hellhole than in the shambles of a failed society that would result from the alternative. That really depends on the alternative. USSR?, North Korea?, Cuba?, Feudalism? I can think of some pretty bad failure states for capitalist hellholes. > We should be wary of assuming that non-market intervention is necessary, but we shouldn't shy away from acting when that intervention is necessary. Sounds rational to me.
adventured 9y ago
> It's a myth that the private sector is inherently more efficient than public sector. Stating it, doesn't make it so. You've provided zero argument for your position. You haven't even provided a logic basis for your claim. Healthcare systems across developed nations? Ok. Germany, Japan and Switzerland all have highly successful private segments to their healthcare systems. They're all as efficient, or more efficient, than comparable overwhelmingly public systems such as in France, Britain or Canada.
- cmac2992 9y ago
  How do you define efficiency? Germany, Switzerland have higher per capital costs than France Britain and Canada. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_hea...
- learc83 9y ago
  Your assertion is that profit motive leads to greater efficiency than any of the motives that drive government agencies. Just because you state it doesn't make it so. If you're honest with yourself, I think you can come up with some problems where a public agency would be more efficient/effective than a private company.
- s73v3r_ 9y ago
  They've provided the same amount of logic basis and argument for their claim as you have for yours.

slphil 9y ago

Healthcare is an obvious exception, and religiously fundamentalist capitalists won't admit to that, but the reason is simple. Healthcare has virtually infinite demand, and the demand for more expensive solutions is intense. It is one of the few sectors of the economy where traditional capitalist price optimization algorithms don't function properly. I wish people would admit this and move towards more rational healthcare considerations, but I also wish people would stop using obvious exceptions to argue against rules. (Healthcare is also an ethical battleground in a sense that many industries never can be. Should a hospital administrator be willing to spend a million dollars to save one life, or should that money go to equipment that could save more lives? The answer seems obvious, but most people react with a sort of justifiable horror at the thought of letting some poor child die so the hospital can buy some new machines.)

learc83 9y ago
Defense, transportation infrastructure, and scientific research are just a few other areas were the rules fall apart. There are many more. Maybe there aren't any near univeral rules and we should look at thinks on a case by case basis.
- slphil 9y ago
  Defense and infrastructure are inherently the responsibility of the state. I'm not a small-government libertarian. Market forces should be used here whenever possible (military-industrial complex, etc) but there obviously can't be competing national militaries or competing national highway systems. Scientific research: maybe, it depends. Innovation is complicated and there's no linear investment-to-payoff in research. People concerned with profit at least are discouraged by the profit motive from dumping huge amounts of money into failed research. At the same time, some critical research isn't market-profitable. Universal rules definitely exist in the form of things like supply/demand curves. I would rather live in a hardcore capitalist hellhole than in the shambles of a failed society that would result from the alternative. We should be wary of assuming that non-market intervention is necessary, but we shouldn't shy away from acting when that intervention is necessary.
  - learc83 9y ago
    >Universal rules definitely exist in the form of things like supply/demand curves. There are no universal rules for economics in reality. There are generally useful models, that often fail spectacularly. All the universal rules you can think of depend on simplifications that never actually hold--rational actors, perfect information, perfect competition etc... >I would rather live in a hardcore capitalist hellhole than in the shambles of a failed society that would result from the alternative. That really depends on the alternative. USSR?, North Korea?, Cuba?, Feudalism? I can think of some pretty bad failure states for capitalist hellholes. > We should be wary of assuming that non-market intervention is necessary, but we shouldn't shy away from acting when that intervention is necessary. Sounds rational to me.

adventured 9y ago

> It's a myth that the private sector is inherently more efficient than public sector. Stating it, doesn't make it so. You've provided zero argument for your position. You haven't even provided a logic basis for your claim. Healthcare systems across developed nations? Ok. Germany, Japan and Switzerland all have highly successful private segments to their healthcare systems. They're all as efficient, or more efficient, than comparable overwhelmingly public systems such as in France, Britain or Canada.

cmac2992 9y ago
How do you define efficiency? Germany, Switzerland have higher per capital costs than France Britain and Canada. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_hea...
learc83 9y ago
Your assertion is that profit motive leads to greater efficiency than any of the motives that drive government agencies. Just because you state it doesn't make it so. If you're honest with yourself, I think you can come up with some problems where a public agency would be more efficient/effective than a private company.
s73v3r_ 9y ago
They've provided the same amount of logic basis and argument for their claim as you have for yours.