3 ms·

The federal government effectively controls things like highways speed limits in all the states. The department of education does a whole lot of wealth redistri

The federal government effectively controls things like highways speed limits in all the states. The department of education does a whole lot of wealth redistribution and exerts a ton of control over every single public school in the country. Just some examples. The federal government is also the largest employer in the country. > The fed can not force states to take the grants, or perform operations in the state without approval. Fine. States that don't want the vaccine are free to refuse it. Do you think they won't play ball if the fed says "we will deliver and distribute the vaccines and you don't have to pay for them"? In what universe will this be something a state refuses saying "we want to pay for this ourselves"? If it helps your mental model, you are the CEO of Alphabet, and Google is California, yet the worm is affecting all your subsidiaries.

vorpalhex 6y ago
The highway near my house runs at 70 and goes up to 80 in parts. Grants are conditional but also optional and that matters. In general yes, the Fed does have an important part in what are basically non-capitalist practices - foodstamps, WIC, social security, etc etc. There are also state programs that are non-fed and also occupy a similar role. None of that disagrees with the basic assertion - the Fed does not fund states general revenue. States are supposed to manage their own budgets and collect their own income. The fed is not an endless income stream. Nobody is saying the fed shouldn't assist states with the vaccine. The states shouldn't however be entirely dependent on the fed for that help - they are supposed to be functional on their own. If the state is not functional without the fed then the state has screwed up.
- IgorPartola 6y ago
  Fine, semantics aside, the federal government is in a unique position to distribute vaccines and testing supplies and PPE with a higher efficiency coefficient than the collection of the states and territories individually. There are people arguing against this in this very thread. In generally, sure the states shouldn't rely on the fed to do everything. In this case it's better for the states to let the fed handle this. If not, why not?
  - vorpalhex 6y ago
    Well, we only need to look at the last time there was a mass vaccination drive. New York City had a smallpox outbreak and administered millions of doses in record time. https://twitter.com/MarkLevineNYC/status/1345407042769580032 https://twitter.com/MarkLevineNYC/status/1345407042769580032 The city was able to mobilize hundreds to thousands of distribution points, call up city workers (who the Fed has no power over) and run vaccine administration 24/7. The state knows more about their interior, they have more resources on the ground and more control over schools and other public buildings (libraries, community centers, etc), more ability to use private businesses if needed, and control the local health infrastructure.
    - IgorPartola 6y ago
      Did the whole country have a smallpox outbreak? No? So it sounds like it was localized to one state. The point is that this is a nation-wide problem, and the federal government is in a unique position to be the most efficient at handling production and distribution of vaccine/testing supplies/PPE. What exactly is your argument around why it should have little or no role? There is a shortage of these things and production happens in a few centralized places. It makes sense that one centralized entity coordinate the production and distribution. What is the problem with that? Please show your work on how 50 states plus territories would handle it better.
      - bhupy 6y ago
        > It makes sense that one centralized entity coordinate the production and distribution Centralized planning can work, but when it doesn't work, it's disastrous for everyone. Decentralized systems trade off a little bit of hypothetical efficiency (again, it depends on the central planner being competent) in return for guaranteed antifragility. If what you're saying is accurate, then we really ought to have a global government (say, the UN) coordinate distribution across the entire planet. Countries like Israel, Taiwan, New Zealand, and Singapore shouldn't be allowed to set up their own distribution systems, rather they should all play into the same globally centralized distribution system. It's a global pandemic after all, right?

vorpalhex 6y ago

The highway near my house runs at 70 and goes up to 80 in parts. Grants are conditional but also optional and that matters. In general yes, the Fed does have an important part in what are basically non-capitalist practices - foodstamps, WIC, social security, etc etc. There are also state programs that are non-fed and also occupy a similar role. None of that disagrees with the basic assertion - the Fed does not fund states general revenue. States are supposed to manage their own budgets and collect their own income. The fed is not an endless income stream. Nobody is saying the fed shouldn't assist states with the vaccine. The states shouldn't however be entirely dependent on the fed for that help - they are supposed to be functional on their own. If the state is not functional without the fed then the state has screwed up.

IgorPartola 6y ago
Fine, semantics aside, the federal government is in a unique position to distribute vaccines and testing supplies and PPE with a higher efficiency coefficient than the collection of the states and territories individually. There are people arguing against this in this very thread. In generally, sure the states shouldn't rely on the fed to do everything. In this case it's better for the states to let the fed handle this. If not, why not?
- vorpalhex 6y ago
  Well, we only need to look at the last time there was a mass vaccination drive. New York City had a smallpox outbreak and administered millions of doses in record time. https://twitter.com/MarkLevineNYC/status/1345407042769580032 https://twitter.com/MarkLevineNYC/status/1345407042769580032 The city was able to mobilize hundreds to thousands of distribution points, call up city workers (who the Fed has no power over) and run vaccine administration 24/7. The state knows more about their interior, they have more resources on the ground and more control over schools and other public buildings (libraries, community centers, etc), more ability to use private businesses if needed, and control the local health infrastructure.
  - IgorPartola 6y ago
    Did the whole country have a smallpox outbreak? No? So it sounds like it was localized to one state. The point is that this is a nation-wide problem, and the federal government is in a unique position to be the most efficient at handling production and distribution of vaccine/testing supplies/PPE. What exactly is your argument around why it should have little or no role? There is a shortage of these things and production happens in a few centralized places. It makes sense that one centralized entity coordinate the production and distribution. What is the problem with that? Please show your work on how 50 states plus territories would handle it better.
    - bhupy 6y ago
      > It makes sense that one centralized entity coordinate the production and distribution Centralized planning can work, but when it doesn't work, it's disastrous for everyone. Decentralized systems trade off a little bit of hypothetical efficiency (again, it depends on the central planner being competent) in return for guaranteed antifragility. If what you're saying is accurate, then we really ought to have a global government (say, the UN) coordinate distribution across the entire planet. Countries like Israel, Taiwan, New Zealand, and Singapore shouldn't be allowed to set up their own distribution systems, rather they should all play into the same globally centralized distribution system. It's a global pandemic after all, right?