6 ms·

Monopolies and regulatory capture sustains insolvent organizations.. see Boeing. This really isn't a private enterprise vs govt split. It's the system in place

by dv_dt 3y ago

Monopolies and regulatory capture sustains insolvent organizations.. see Boeing. This really isn't a private enterprise vs govt split. It's the system in place of how decisions get made, how resources are allocated. Our current system of the world has elements split in both private enterprise and gov't that as a system, exhibit Pournelles law. This theory of division between private enterprise and gov't doesn't in practice limit the negative effects - in fact in think we live in a modern world where we should recognize that there are many many examples of this split failing to administer a solution to meet the needs of society & humans.

mc32 3y ago
Boeing can still go bankrupt or become so financially strapped it needs to sell itself off, merge, split, etc. Governments rarely try to become more efficient. By and large they keep adding to their bureaucracies. The ex Gov of Texas was made fun of for saying he’d eliminate parts of the executive and when asked couldn’t even remember which ones, never the less, there is a kernel of a good idea to retrench bureaucracies on a periodic basis -something when younger I’d dismiss out of hand because I though more govt always equals better.
- dv_dt 3y ago
  Private enterprise in our current system stands in the way of government being more efficient. It's a prime example of administrators (in the form of capitol holders) standing in the way of better functioning. Intuit / Turbo Tax standing in the way of better tax admin. Pharma companies standing in the way of negotiated drug prices for medicare. Power utilities standing in the way of rules allowing distributed power production. The list goes on and on...
  - mc32 3y ago
    Do you think the VA hospitals run better than private?
    - dv_dt 3y ago
      I know that private medicare advantage plans are coming to be worse than gov't medicare plans and the private healthcare fights many improvements in medicare administration. Including wierd lobbied divisions between what the private plans are allowed to cover in areas that the public plans are not. And on a system wide scale, US private healthcare is broken in both cost and performance when compared to comparably advanced nations. I'll rephrase what I said in a different comment, and that the public/private division and arguing about which is "better" on an exclusionary basis is a big distraction on the failing of systems which include elements of both. "Free market or not" is mostly an immaterial distinction imho.
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        > "Free market or not" is mostly an immaterial distinction imho. I don't think this is the right conclusion. What you need is a competitive market. An uncompetitive market doesn't work. But a government is going to be a monopoly, which is the thing that doesn't work, whereas a market has the possibility of being competitive even if it is possible to screw that up. US healthcare is a case in point. The healthcare system is highly regulated and the regulators are captured by the incumbents, so the regulations are designed to inhibit price competition between providers and keep costs high because those costs are the incumbents' profits. In order to achieve the benefits of competition you would need rules that actually facilitate it. For example, if providers were required to publish pricing and then insurance would deposit into your HSA 90% of the median cost of a procedure among every provider within 100 miles of your address (equivalent to a 10% copay), and then you can choose where to go. Now there is no such thing as "in network" anymore and the patient has the direct incentive to be price sensitive, which in turn requires providers to publish competitive prices. But we don't do that, because it might work.
        dv_dt 3y ago
        To be a bit glib there is no competitive market to give me an emergency surgery if my appendix has burst. But in a sense I think we have some agreement that it’s much more interesting to discuss a set of characteristics than can make markets work to deliver value. I just think “free” isn’t a useful distinction because it’s approached usually a shorthand for free of regulation. I think that all markets are artificial and require rules to form a functional marketplace of exchange.
- idontpost 3y ago
  [dead]
- dv_dt 3y ago
  I'll add a separate comment, because I don't feel I specifically addressed your observation that Boeing can go bankrupt, split, etc. Boeing is today, the conglomeration of previous companies that did become distressed enough to be consumed or split and acquired. That actually exacerbated the systemic problems of the current Boeing. So this idea that private enterprise can't accumulate systemic issues seems like an optimistic concept that is invalidated by Boeing's current circumstances.
- cjbgkagh 3y ago
  The current issues with Boeing are largely blamed on a merger with McDonnell Douglas that was forced upon Boeing by the US government. Now the US government gives many favorable conditions to Boing with regards to lucrative defence contracts as well as the US govt goes after Boeing would be competitors on their behalf (see Embraer). At this point it may make more sense to consider Boeing a for profit arm of the US government than any kind of normal business.

by dv_dt 3y ago

mc32 3y ago

Boeing can still go bankrupt or become so financially strapped it needs to sell itself off, merge, split, etc. Governments rarely try to become more efficient. By and large they keep adding to their bureaucracies. The ex Gov of Texas was made fun of for saying he’d eliminate parts of the executive and when asked couldn’t even remember which ones, never the less, there is a kernel of a good idea to retrench bureaucracies on a periodic basis -something when younger I’d dismiss out of hand because I though more govt always equals better.

dv_dt 3y ago
Private enterprise in our current system stands in the way of government being more efficient. It's a prime example of administrators (in the form of capitol holders) standing in the way of better functioning. Intuit / Turbo Tax standing in the way of better tax admin. Pharma companies standing in the way of negotiated drug prices for medicare. Power utilities standing in the way of rules allowing distributed power production. The list goes on and on...
- mc32 3y ago
  Do you think the VA hospitals run better than private?
  - dv_dt 3y ago
    I know that private medicare advantage plans are coming to be worse than gov't medicare plans and the private healthcare fights many improvements in medicare administration. Including wierd lobbied divisions between what the private plans are allowed to cover in areas that the public plans are not. And on a system wide scale, US private healthcare is broken in both cost and performance when compared to comparably advanced nations. I'll rephrase what I said in a different comment, and that the public/private division and arguing about which is "better" on an exclusionary basis is a big distraction on the failing of systems which include elements of both. "Free market or not" is mostly an immaterial distinction imho.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > "Free market or not" is mostly an immaterial distinction imho. I don't think this is the right conclusion. What you need is a competitive market. An uncompetitive market doesn't work. But a government is going to be a monopoly, which is the thing that doesn't work, whereas a market has the possibility of being competitive even if it is possible to screw that up. US healthcare is a case in point. The healthcare system is highly regulated and the regulators are captured by the incumbents, so the regulations are designed to inhibit price competition between providers and keep costs high because those costs are the incumbents' profits. In order to achieve the benefits of competition you would need rules that actually facilitate it. For example, if providers were required to publish pricing and then insurance would deposit into your HSA 90% of the median cost of a procedure among every provider within 100 miles of your address (equivalent to a 10% copay), and then you can choose where to go. Now there is no such thing as "in network" anymore and the patient has the direct incentive to be price sensitive, which in turn requires providers to publish competitive prices. But we don't do that, because it might work.
      - dv_dt 3y ago
        To be a bit glib there is no competitive market to give me an emergency surgery if my appendix has burst. But in a sense I think we have some agreement that it’s much more interesting to discuss a set of characteristics than can make markets work to deliver value. I just think “free” isn’t a useful distinction because it’s approached usually a shorthand for free of regulation. I think that all markets are artificial and require rules to form a functional marketplace of exchange.
idontpost 3y ago
[dead]
dv_dt 3y ago
I'll add a separate comment, because I don't feel I specifically addressed your observation that Boeing can go bankrupt, split, etc. Boeing is today, the conglomeration of previous companies that did become distressed enough to be consumed or split and acquired. That actually exacerbated the systemic problems of the current Boeing. So this idea that private enterprise can't accumulate systemic issues seems like an optimistic concept that is invalidated by Boeing's current circumstances.
cjbgkagh 3y ago
The current issues with Boeing are largely blamed on a merger with McDonnell Douglas that was forced upon Boeing by the US government. Now the US government gives many favorable conditions to Boing with regards to lucrative defence contracts as well as the US govt goes after Boeing would be competitors on their behalf (see Embraer). At this point it may make more sense to consider Boeing a for profit arm of the US government than any kind of normal business.