3 ms·

I don't see any fundamental reason why they should use things made/done by private companies. And not so long ago a lot less of the things were made by other th

I don't see any fundamental reason why they should use things made/done by private companies. And not so long ago a lot less of the things were made by other than private companies. One can probably see almost everything as competition with certain colored glasses. With scarce resources you do need some way of allocating them of course. But there are many other ways of allocation. E.g. hospitals (at least in sane system) allocate by need or urgency for care. To get a seat in a bus a lane on the highway or food from a cafeteria or breadline you queue. In national elections the voting power is allocated vote-per-person. In state funded organizations employees are sometimes hired based on the employees needs. From each according to their ability to each according to their need is just a way of allocating resources. And a very typical way of doing so among e.g. families and friends and volunteer run organizations.

robertlagrant 3y ago
> But there are many other ways of allocation. E.g. hospitals (at least in sane system) allocate by need or urgency for care. To get a seat in a bus a lane on the highway or food from a cafeteria or breadline you queue. Medical urgency - yes, but this is imperfect, and still is a millions of times more constrained problem than the general problem of allocating resources in an economy. Queues- but how does that help with, say, oil selling? Who decides who gets the oil? Does each person queue and get their own free barrel of oil? What if I need a hundred barrels because I'm making plastic things, whereas Fred just wants to heat his home? How does it help with allocating people? Does each company get one employee at a time? Or do they queue for their own employees, and keep coming back for more? > From each according to their ability to each according to their need is just a way of allocating resources. And a very typical way of doing so among e.g. families and friends and volunteer run organizations. Yes, because the likelihood of the parental figure doing the allocating being awful is low, and the blast radius of them being awful is small (while tragic when it does happen). Scale it up and the "your ability meets my need" will also scale up, as that parental role has unbelievable amounts of direct power allocated to it. That's why some tens of millions died in poverty in the USSR and communist China, and why tragically Venezuelans are starving today, due to the state utterly mismanaging the largest oil supply in the world. I really can't understand looking at the state as a giant parental figure. If we were to make it one, it will attract power-hungry people to it, and it will fail to hire on competence (what if the incompetent people's need for a job is greater?) As seems to have happened in the past every time it's been tried.
- jampekka 3y ago
  > Medical urgency - yes, but this is imperfect, and still is a millions of times more constrained problem than the general problem of allocating resources in an economy. What do you mean by imperfect? The original claim was "competition is needed to make everything better". I'm guessing you don't mean competition by e.g. surgury to highest bidder would be a very good way of allocating them? > Queues- but how does that help with, say, oil selling? Who decides who gets the oil? Does each person queue and get their own free barrel of oil? In oil shortages rationing is very common. E.g. New York does this for heating oil (of course queuing isn't really needed here). California rations or restricts usage for water all the time. Details depend on the situation. That something is rationed or has to be queued for doesn't necessarily mean it's free of charge. > I really can't understand looking at the state as a giant parental figure. I think you are doing exactly that. States aren't typically run by monarchs anymore, they are run democratically (at least in theory). Try replacing "state" with "democracy" to see why some don't see state managed things in so bad light. State isn't of course ideal, and in most leftist thought it's seen more as a hopefully temporary "necessary evil", but not as bad as dictatorship of privately owned capital.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > What do you mean by imperfect? While need is the sorting criterion, it's not done perfectly. Nor can it be > The original claim was "competition is needed to make everything better". I'm guessing you don't mean competition by e.g. surgury to highest bidder would be a very good way of allocating them? It definitely makes things better: we don't let just anyone be a surgeon. You're confusing money with competition, I think, but it's hard to follow your thoughts. I'm not saying "highest bidder" is the best way to allocate everything. I'm saying that even in a really constrained, defined situation, it's not perfect, and it's a million times easier than the general case of allocating resources through a national economy. > In oil shortages rationing is very common. E.g. New York does this for heating oil (of course queuing isn't really needed here). California rations or restricts usage for water all the time. Details depend on the situation. That something is rationed or has to be queued for doesn't necessarily mean it's free of charge. Rations or restrictions aren't queues. Think of any of the tens of millions of goods and components that flow through an economy. You cannot design a top down system that allocates them all efficiently. You certainly can't say everyone should queue for everything. You let people buy what they want, and if you need to put your thumb on the scale a bit for some reason (e.g. emergency healthcare for someone with no money) you have taxes to pay for that. > I think you are doing exactly that. Can you cite any of my beliefs that would give you that impression? > they are run democratically (at least in theory). Try replacing "state" with "democracy" to see why some don't see state managed things in so bad light. They aren't run democratically; their leaders are occasionally elected, but based upon a huge number of factors (including charisma as one of the main ones). Electing someone is a very weak signal that you like/dislike any number of their policies. I think it's misleading to pretend that state institutions are run by the people. They can be influenced, but only really if enough people think of them as their top, overriding voting preference every 4 years or so. That's incredibly unlikely. If Netflix starts doing a bad job, it will lose millions of subscribers instantly. That's why they have to keep doing a good job forever. > dictatorship of privately owned capital Private capital is not a dictatorship. It can't lock you in jail, or send you off to die in a war, or starve a country. It's just people risking their own money to put behind a venture, of far more limited blast radius than a monarch or authoritarian regime can achieve.

robertlagrant 3y ago

> But there are many other ways of allocation. E.g. hospitals (at least in sane system) allocate by need or urgency for care. To get a seat in a bus a lane on the highway or food from a cafeteria or breadline you queue. Medical urgency - yes, but this is imperfect, and still is a millions of times more constrained problem than the general problem of allocating resources in an economy. Queues- but how does that help with, say, oil selling? Who decides who gets the oil? Does each person queue and get their own free barrel of oil? What if I need a hundred barrels because I'm making plastic things, whereas Fred just wants to heat his home? How does it help with allocating people? Does each company get one employee at a time? Or do they queue for their own employees, and keep coming back for more? > From each according to their ability to each according to their need is just a way of allocating resources. And a very typical way of doing so among e.g. families and friends and volunteer run organizations. Yes, because the likelihood of the parental figure doing the allocating being awful is low, and the blast radius of them being awful is small (while tragic when it does happen). Scale it up and the "your ability meets my need" will also scale up, as that parental role has unbelievable amounts of direct power allocated to it. That's why some tens of millions died in poverty in the USSR and communist China, and why tragically Venezuelans are starving today, due to the state utterly mismanaging the largest oil supply in the world. I really can't understand looking at the state as a giant parental figure. If we were to make it one, it will attract power-hungry people to it, and it will fail to hire on competence (what if the incompetent people's need for a job is greater?) As seems to have happened in the past every time it's been tried.

jampekka 3y ago
> Medical urgency - yes, but this is imperfect, and still is a millions of times more constrained problem than the general problem of allocating resources in an economy. What do you mean by imperfect? The original claim was "competition is needed to make everything better". I'm guessing you don't mean competition by e.g. surgury to highest bidder would be a very good way of allocating them? > Queues- but how does that help with, say, oil selling? Who decides who gets the oil? Does each person queue and get their own free barrel of oil? In oil shortages rationing is very common. E.g. New York does this for heating oil (of course queuing isn't really needed here). California rations or restricts usage for water all the time. Details depend on the situation. That something is rationed or has to be queued for doesn't necessarily mean it's free of charge. > I really can't understand looking at the state as a giant parental figure. I think you are doing exactly that. States aren't typically run by monarchs anymore, they are run democratically (at least in theory). Try replacing "state" with "democracy" to see why some don't see state managed things in so bad light. State isn't of course ideal, and in most leftist thought it's seen more as a hopefully temporary "necessary evil", but not as bad as dictatorship of privately owned capital.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > What do you mean by imperfect? While need is the sorting criterion, it's not done perfectly. Nor can it be > The original claim was "competition is needed to make everything better". I'm guessing you don't mean competition by e.g. surgury to highest bidder would be a very good way of allocating them? It definitely makes things better: we don't let just anyone be a surgeon. You're confusing money with competition, I think, but it's hard to follow your thoughts. I'm not saying "highest bidder" is the best way to allocate everything. I'm saying that even in a really constrained, defined situation, it's not perfect, and it's a million times easier than the general case of allocating resources through a national economy. > In oil shortages rationing is very common. E.g. New York does this for heating oil (of course queuing isn't really needed here). California rations or restricts usage for water all the time. Details depend on the situation. That something is rationed or has to be queued for doesn't necessarily mean it's free of charge. Rations or restrictions aren't queues. Think of any of the tens of millions of goods and components that flow through an economy. You cannot design a top down system that allocates them all efficiently. You certainly can't say everyone should queue for everything. You let people buy what they want, and if you need to put your thumb on the scale a bit for some reason (e.g. emergency healthcare for someone with no money) you have taxes to pay for that. > I think you are doing exactly that. Can you cite any of my beliefs that would give you that impression? > they are run democratically (at least in theory). Try replacing "state" with "democracy" to see why some don't see state managed things in so bad light. They aren't run democratically; their leaders are occasionally elected, but based upon a huge number of factors (including charisma as one of the main ones). Electing someone is a very weak signal that you like/dislike any number of their policies. I think it's misleading to pretend that state institutions are run by the people. They can be influenced, but only really if enough people think of them as their top, overriding voting preference every 4 years or so. That's incredibly unlikely. If Netflix starts doing a bad job, it will lose millions of subscribers instantly. That's why they have to keep doing a good job forever. > dictatorship of privately owned capital Private capital is not a dictatorship. It can't lock you in jail, or send you off to die in a war, or starve a country. It's just people risking their own money to put behind a venture, of far more limited blast radius than a monarch or authoritarian regime can achieve.