3 ms·

Because we have governments anemic to running anything or regulating any business. They are much more likely to continue shoveling cash into private businesses

by cogman10 10mo ago

Because we have governments anemic to running anything or regulating any business. They are much more likely to continue shoveling cash into private businesses through subsidies then to want to setup and/or run the same business for a fraction of the cost.

tjwebbnorfolk 10mo ago
The same one who just said PE isn't allowed to buy any more residential real estate? I hope they go after hospitals next.
- cogman10 10mo ago
  > The same one who just said PE isn't allowed to buy any more residential real estate? We'll see. That was just an EO. That doesn't really have the force of law behind it. There's not a regulatory body (AFAIK) that would or could prevent PE from gobbling up a home. But if there's a route to stop it then I'm not opposed to it. PE buying essential goods and industries is bad for everyone.
  - tootie 10mo ago
    It wasn't even an EO. It was a tweet.
    - deleted 10mo ago
      [deleted]
    - gryfft 10mo ago
      The President's statements, and even unspoken thoughts, have the full force of law. This President, anyway-- I think the Supreme Court has a special criterion they use to determine whether Unitary Executive Theory should apply to a particular administration.
      - actionfromafar 10mo ago
        Yes, if admin == Republican.
  - thayne 10mo ago
    My impression is it was also mostly a publicity stunt.
- wookmaster 10mo ago
  He says about 500 things a week and rarely followed through. They have gone after anyone yet so I wouldn't be thinking about "next"
  - AniseAbyss 10mo ago
    [dead]
- refulgentis 10mo ago
  I’ve been hoping to meet one of the marks for the ol’ “tweet means he did it” thing in year 5. Hello!
- sokoloff 10mo ago
  NB: “single family homes” not “residential real estate”
andy99 10mo ago
Government is probably the worst actor to run healthcare facilities. It’s not that different from PE, except with more administrative bloat. I’d be curious to compare US PE run facilities with government run facilities in Canada. There is not an easy answer here, it basically a cost centre that whoever runs it, the welfare state is incentivized to spend as little as possible on it. PE is almost certainly a bad solution. If they can destroy a restaurant or other low impact business, I hate to think what they’d do to businesses that care for people. You’d get the healthcare equivalent of Burger King. But with government you get the equivalent of the DMV.
- cogman10 10mo ago
  > I’d be curious to compare US PE run facilities with government run facilities in Canada. You don't have to do that, we have US government ran facilities. It's the VA. And if you look at the costs associated with the VA, they are much much cheaper than almost any private care [1]. And if you know a few vets, you know they almost universally love the VA. It's one of the best perks of serving in the military. [1] https://www.herc.research.va.gov/include/page.asp?ID=inpatient https://www.herc.research.va.gov/include/page.asp?ID=inpatie...
  - wisty 10mo ago
    Free market ideologues are too dumb to understand local minima. An ideal free market is a global minima (in theory). It's the best. A non-ideal free market (heavily subsidised and regulated) might be close (in parameter space) to a global minima, but might be highly suboptimal compared to a local minima.
    - messe 10mo ago
      It's not even that. Free markets by themselves (as implemented thus far) DO NOT ACCOUNT FOR EXTERNALITIES. I have yet to see reasonable fix to the tragedy of the commons in a free market situation, and that's one of the most basic things one is fucking introduced to when studying economics and game theory. Anybody who thinks health care is best served solely privately should have to pay to be diagnosed for something; either that or they've been failed in their privately funded education.
immibis 10mo ago
Think the word that fits there is "allergic".
throwaway2037 10mo ago
> Because we have governments anemic to running anything or regulating any business. This comment is weird to me. The US has one of the most effective environmental regulators in the world (EPA). The FAA and FDA are also excellent. The securities markets in the US are the global gold standard of regulation (SEC, etc.).
- cogman10 10mo ago
  Certainly. These are institutions that have mostly been created during the progressive era of the US. The EPA (I believe) is the latest of these organizations. Since roughly Reagan, the US has been either fully dismantling, defunding, or privatizing these institutions. We've seen the FAA start to rely too heavily on the likes of Boeing to set regulation standards. The FDA has relied heavily on fees from private institutions to function and it's weakening due to that improper mixing has resulted in the likes of the Vioxx scandal. Medicare is a good example of this. Under Clinton, rather than expanding or reforming medicare he introduced a plan to allow private insurance companies to get government dollars (medicare part c).
  - throwaway2037 10mo ago
    > These are institutions that have mostly been created during the progressive era of the US. The EPA (I believe) is the latest of these organizations. Wiki tells me that the EPA was created by Richard Nixon in 1970. Also, it matters little when a regulatory body was created. It matters much more how it changes over time -- it is continously adapting to changes in our society and economy. For example, after the 2008 global financial crisis, securites markets regulators changes significantly to strengthen the financial system. > Since roughly Reagan, the US has been either fully dismantling, defunding, or privatizing these institutions. Clinton, Obama, and Biden were doing this? If so, please provide examples.
    - cogman10 10mo ago
      > Clinton, Obama, and Biden were doing this? If so, please provide examples. Yup. Primarily on the 3rd prong but, especially under Clinton, there was also significant defunding that went one. "The era of big government is over". Clinton did welfare reform, which added much stricter means testing and work requirements to welfare. The "reinventing government" program was literally a hack and slash on government agencies not unlike DOGE. The student loan reform reduced subsidies for students. He signed in the crime bill which enabled the building of private prisons and ramped up the US incarceration rates. And he created Medicare part C which created a route to send government funds to private insurers. Obama's signature bill, the ACA, was a giant handout to insurance companies in pretty much every way. By trying to force people into buying insurance and also subsidizing insurance purchases, it was a major gift to health insurers. Even the Medicaid expansion mostly resulted in private insurers getting more wealthy as most states implement Medicaid via a private insurance contractor. After the first midterm Obama got very little done mainly due to the republican's continuing the Newt Gingrich "we oppose everything you support" strategy and the filibuster. Biden was mostly business as usual, however both the infrastructure bill and the chips act can't be seen as anything other than just massive giveaways to private industry. The build back better act would have been the same had it passed.

tjwebbnorfolk 10mo ago

The same one who just said PE isn't allowed to buy any more residential real estate? I hope they go after hospitals next.

cogman10 10mo ago
> The same one who just said PE isn't allowed to buy any more residential real estate? We'll see. That was just an EO. That doesn't really have the force of law behind it. There's not a regulatory body (AFAIK) that would or could prevent PE from gobbling up a home. But if there's a route to stop it then I'm not opposed to it. PE buying essential goods and industries is bad for everyone.
- tootie 10mo ago
  It wasn't even an EO. It was a tweet.
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
  - gryfft 10mo ago
    The President's statements, and even unspoken thoughts, have the full force of law. This President, anyway-- I think the Supreme Court has a special criterion they use to determine whether Unitary Executive Theory should apply to a particular administration.
    - actionfromafar 10mo ago
      Yes, if admin == Republican.
- thayne 10mo ago
  My impression is it was also mostly a publicity stunt.
wookmaster 10mo ago
He says about 500 things a week and rarely followed through. They have gone after anyone yet so I wouldn't be thinking about "next"
- AniseAbyss 10mo ago
  [dead]
refulgentis 10mo ago
I’ve been hoping to meet one of the marks for the ol’ “tweet means he did it” thing in year 5. Hello!
sokoloff 10mo ago
NB: “single family homes” not “residential real estate”

andy99 10mo ago

Government is probably the worst actor to run healthcare facilities. It’s not that different from PE, except with more administrative bloat. I’d be curious to compare US PE run facilities with government run facilities in Canada. There is not an easy answer here, it basically a cost centre that whoever runs it, the welfare state is incentivized to spend as little as possible on it. PE is almost certainly a bad solution. If they can destroy a restaurant or other low impact business, I hate to think what they’d do to businesses that care for people. You’d get the healthcare equivalent of Burger King. But with government you get the equivalent of the DMV.

cogman10 10mo ago
> I’d be curious to compare US PE run facilities with government run facilities in Canada. You don't have to do that, we have US government ran facilities. It's the VA. And if you look at the costs associated with the VA, they are much much cheaper than almost any private care [1]. And if you know a few vets, you know they almost universally love the VA. It's one of the best perks of serving in the military. [1] https://www.herc.research.va.gov/include/page.asp?ID=inpatient https://www.herc.research.va.gov/include/page.asp?ID=inpatie...
- wisty 10mo ago
  Free market ideologues are too dumb to understand local minima. An ideal free market is a global minima (in theory). It's the best. A non-ideal free market (heavily subsidised and regulated) might be close (in parameter space) to a global minima, but might be highly suboptimal compared to a local minima.
  - messe 10mo ago
    It's not even that. Free markets by themselves (as implemented thus far) DO NOT ACCOUNT FOR EXTERNALITIES. I have yet to see reasonable fix to the tragedy of the commons in a free market situation, and that's one of the most basic things one is fucking introduced to when studying economics and game theory. Anybody who thinks health care is best served solely privately should have to pay to be diagnosed for something; either that or they've been failed in their privately funded education.

immibis 10mo ago

Think the word that fits there is "allergic".

throwaway2037 10mo ago

> Because we have governments anemic to running anything or regulating any business. This comment is weird to me. The US has one of the most effective environmental regulators in the world (EPA). The FAA and FDA are also excellent. The securities markets in the US are the global gold standard of regulation (SEC, etc.).

cogman10 10mo ago
Certainly. These are institutions that have mostly been created during the progressive era of the US. The EPA (I believe) is the latest of these organizations. Since roughly Reagan, the US has been either fully dismantling, defunding, or privatizing these institutions. We've seen the FAA start to rely too heavily on the likes of Boeing to set regulation standards. The FDA has relied heavily on fees from private institutions to function and it's weakening due to that improper mixing has resulted in the likes of the Vioxx scandal. Medicare is a good example of this. Under Clinton, rather than expanding or reforming medicare he introduced a plan to allow private insurance companies to get government dollars (medicare part c).
- throwaway2037 10mo ago
  > These are institutions that have mostly been created during the progressive era of the US. The EPA (I believe) is the latest of these organizations. Wiki tells me that the EPA was created by Richard Nixon in 1970. Also, it matters little when a regulatory body was created. It matters much more how it changes over time -- it is continously adapting to changes in our society and economy. For example, after the 2008 global financial crisis, securites markets regulators changes significantly to strengthen the financial system. > Since roughly Reagan, the US has been either fully dismantling, defunding, or privatizing these institutions. Clinton, Obama, and Biden were doing this? If so, please provide examples.
  - cogman10 10mo ago
    > Clinton, Obama, and Biden were doing this? If so, please provide examples. Yup. Primarily on the 3rd prong but, especially under Clinton, there was also significant defunding that went one. "The era of big government is over". Clinton did welfare reform, which added much stricter means testing and work requirements to welfare. The "reinventing government" program was literally a hack and slash on government agencies not unlike DOGE. The student loan reform reduced subsidies for students. He signed in the crime bill which enabled the building of private prisons and ramped up the US incarceration rates. And he created Medicare part C which created a route to send government funds to private insurers. Obama's signature bill, the ACA, was a giant handout to insurance companies in pretty much every way. By trying to force people into buying insurance and also subsidizing insurance purchases, it was a major gift to health insurers. Even the Medicaid expansion mostly resulted in private insurers getting more wealthy as most states implement Medicaid via a private insurance contractor. After the first midterm Obama got very little done mainly due to the republican's continuing the Newt Gingrich "we oppose everything you support" strategy and the filibuster. Biden was mostly business as usual, however both the infrastructure bill and the chips act can't be seen as anything other than just massive giveaways to private industry. The build back better act would have been the same had it passed.