Are collective efforts necessary?
POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Tuesday, November 8, 2005 21:59
VIEWED: 5226
PAGE 3 of 6
Quote:
Assuming no state and local govt involvement means that the price is outside the reach of property owners. Our city can't actually pay for the improvements. We supplement our own funding from State and Federal Grants in aid. That still leaves the average property owner on any given street with an assessment usually in the $5,000-$20,000 range. That means the average actual cost is between $10,000 and $20,000 per.
So your company, which actually exists because many smaller communities outsource this to independent contractors, would flounder with sidewalks being limited to the richest neighborhoods. You could offset by offering lower quality sidewalks, since in your no govt world their would be no liabilty for substandard work.
I suspect that were this the case the poor would become so abused by people like Sidewalks, Inc. that they would revolt and demand a govt to protect their class interests. Almost a reverse Communist Revolution.
Hero,
This is because govt. is doing it, and govt. is inherrently inefficient.
Port Authority has a lot of infrastructure to maintain which it does at tremendous profit, and yet toll prices are not out of control.
If the figures you quote are actual, then it is govt. which is out of control. Something is seriously amiss. We maintain sidewalks here, too. We do so at an annual cost of zero, and maybe an every 20 years cost of $200. Anyone can eyeball the situation and see that this is more realistic.
Building owners who house the poor would of course be responsible for the sidewalks as well. If they don't want to deal with Sidewalk Inc. then they can contract with Walkways of America LLC to take over their sidewalks.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Yes, but... The fallacy is that everyone WILL pay. Some people may not want to pay for sidewalk upkeep. Perhaps they always use their car. Perhaps they would rather buy a plasma TV. Perhaps they simply can't afford it. Then the problem becomes that the sidewalk becomes less useful because some segments are cracked or even non-existant. As it becomes less useful, it becomes less used, and therefore other become less interested in upkeep. Eventually, the whole system falls down. That is what is called "the problem of the commons".
I am extremely dubious of this scenario. Given how much care absolutely everyone pays to the look of their houses and lawns, I don't think that anyone would have a rubbleheap at the end of their driveway. And remember, I'm very poor and live in a poor area.
Still I can see my measure is not going to pass here. It was a neat idea though.
Most of the other services you describe are actually provided by for profit businesses here in upstate new york. We have garbage collection, recycling, etc. We pay for everything. So does everybody else, since they all pay taxes. The thing is, paying directly for these services, which if essential, everyone will pay for, but paying directly will help lower the cost. With taxes, costs grow, fat grows, and red tape grows, and soon you have the numbers Hero quoted.
I remember a little annecdote I'll pass along. A bridge collapsed here maybe 10 years ago. The state came in, because in NY the bridges are all under the state highway dept. They looked it over and said: "Nope, not worth it, there are only like three houses on that road."
But there was no other road access for those three houses. So the families said, fine, what does it cost, we'll pay it.
The state said "okay"
Then they sent down some people, they made a plan, and they said okay, here's our estimate: $15 million. we know your town can't pay that, but we'll work with you, let's set up a time payment.
So the families said, screw that, and they hired some contractors, a local mason and a bunch of farmers. They built a bridge according to a plan for the first bridge built there in 1820 or something, and it cost them $43,000.
Private industry finds a way to make it happen. Govt. finds a way to pad the most fat into it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think there are two... or maybe three... or possibly more... parts to this discussion. The first part is- Will everyone pay for an "essential" service? The answer is- Not really. For a service that "most" people think is essential, "most" people will pay. But out of a hundred people, there will always be those few who simply refuse. "Their" part of the roadway will be potholded. "Their" part of the sidewalk will be nonexistant. "Their" yards will be full of the trash that wasn't hauled away, bringing down the value of the neighborhood. What to do?
Most of the other services you describe are actually provided by for profit businesses here in upstate new york. We have garbage collection, recycling, etc. We pay for everything. So does everybody else, since they all pay taxes. The thing is, paying directly for these services, which if essential, everyone will pay for, but paying directly will help lower the cost. With taxes, costs grow, fat grows, and red tape grows, and soon you have the numbers Hero quoted
But let's assume that everyone WILL pay. Even so, there are goods and services that are impossible to apportion out in anything other than a collective way. Where is "my" part of an interstate highway? All right- let's assume that some enterprising person built a toll road interstate and intends to collect lots of money from his/her investment. So what is "my" portion of a traffic signal? "My" portion of copyright laws? "My" portion of clean air? And I haven't even gotten to national defense, laws, and disaster protection.
Then there is the whole "bloated government" assumptions. The "bridge" example isn't accurate because you compared costs for non-equivalent services. I can counter that with lots (and lots) of countervening examples of state services that are actually CHEAPER than equivalent private services.
And finally there is the whole assumption that progress is only made through capitalism. I'm not going to get into a very detailed discussion, but right off the bat I can name you a dozen critical discoveries/ technologies that were developed that had NOTHING to do with capitalism, starting with fire, agriculture and the alphabet. Clearly, something is motivating discovery BESIDES the ability to privately own an idea.
I'm not trying to make the argument that everything can or should be provided by government- just trying to parse out which ones are ESSENTIALLY collective and which ones are CONVENIENTLY collective.
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Firs off let me say I only started this to be devils advocate, to say it wasn't really necessary. At the moment we live in a country where 1/2 of every dollar earned by every worker in every field that is at least middle class goes in some form or other to fund the military industrial complex which uses those funds to run a huge war machine which is killing 100,000 random people a year, which is about one every five minutes. The most logical solution is probably to cut off the tap.
I don't this "sectioning" is how it would work. Route 29 belongs to Roads Inc. or to the Local Route 29 company, or whatever. basic maintenance is their responsibility. Maintaining auxialliary services usually more than fits the bill, but if it doesn't, roads will simply become toll or subscription. You drive on these roads.
Whatever, there are many ways to do it. By itself, it doesn't necessitate large govt. or any for that matter.
Traffic Signal belong to the road.
Air would have to be regulated somehow. That's a much better argument for govt. than the sidewalks thing, which I'm sure is 100% workable under total anarchy.
The anarchist nation would become an environmental hazard, I have to agree. To stick on the 'what if we got rid of govt. idea, which is basically what this thread is about, how about some ideas re: the environment.
I'm all ears.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Dreamtrove,
I did not respond to these arguments elsewhere b/c, frankly, there was so much wrong with them I didn't have the time to get to all of it.
So, one by one:
governments:
You ignored my other examples, and many, many more one could think of in examining governments and their differences (if any). Saddam Hussein definitely had a government going. Was his government no different than Denmark's? Just a yes or no will do, as you seem to think all governments are equally non-representative of 'the people'.
healthcare:
"An actual free market would greatly improve things."
How you can persist in this delusion in the face of data is beyond me. More socialized medicine results in: longer lifespan, better infant mortality, more care, and cheaper care (total and per capita); and the care that you do get, well, it's better too. Explain in detail what data you have to support your claim, as I have not seen any, (let me repeat this), any evidence to back this up. (Beyond your personal testimonial, which I will address later.)
"commie healthcare did not come up with genetic engineering, antiviral drugs or stem cell research."
In fact, all of the research on genetic engineering, antiviral drugs and stem cell research came from publicly supported research directly or through government grants - commie research if you will - and much of it came direcrly, or with significant assistance, from outside of the US.
"James Watson and Francis Crick publish their discovery of the three-dimensional double helix structure of DNA. This discovery will eventually lead to the ability of scientists to identify and "splice" genes from one kind of organism into the DNA of another." Let me point out that both were British and did their work at Cambridge University (UK).
"Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen combined their efforts in biotechnology to invent a method of cloning genetically engineered molecules in foreign cells. By this discovery and its applications Boyer and Cohen initiated what is now the multibillion-dollar biotechnology industry.
Their collaboration began at a conference in Hawaii in 1972, when Boyer was a biochemist and genetic engineer at the University of California at San Francisco, and Cohen was an associate professor of medicine at Stanford University." In other words, the work was done by public-grant supported academicians.
William Prusoff a professor at Yale discovered idoxuridine, the very first anti-viral medicine used to treat ocular HSV (herpes) (originally it was an anti-cancer drug).
Stem-cell research. Not quite sure how to address this. Should I start with IVF in Britain? They led the way. Or do I go on with bone marrow transplants, a form of stem cell transplantation practiced long before the understanding that stem cells made the procedure work - and pioneered by the French through government supported medical research. Or do I refer to events as recent as 1998 when Thomson (University of Wisconsin, Madison) and Gearhart (Johns Hopkins University) independently developed methods of growing stem cells in culture.
In no case do I see free market forces as private enterprise providing the research, though I do see them benefiting from public tax-supported research.
testimonial:
to be addressed later
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rue, I never said all govts. are the same. I said "at best" and "at worst" so clearly there's a spectrum.
Denmark is clearly close to best, and Hussein is close to worst.
Healthcare.
The american system, which I consider to be essentially socialized medicine for some, that leaves some people like me out in the cold is nowhere near a freemarket system.
That research came primarily from university and private sector companies, and a few govt. labs. Nothing I've ever read on the subject indicates that this was the product of socialized medicine, and I read this stuff daily, often at length. I read that book by watson and crick, But genetic engineering really began with the whole carrot experiment and genentech.
But why does everyone like to naysay everything so much. I say this because I almost wrote snidely "a private sector company" but of course you know that.
The thing is these stories of scientific innovations that i have read in the tens of thousands almost never say "at a public facility in communist china" or "at saddam hussein's facility in" They in fact always say one of two things "at such and such labs, a publicly traded company," or "at such and such american university" and occasionally "at the national university in seoul sk." or some such.
And let's take a little moment here to address the issue of Korea. South Korea's medical industry is considered one of the best private healthcare systems in the world. In fact, South Korea an unapologetic advertisement for free market capitalism is starkly contrasted to its communist couterpart, just as east germany was to west germany, the more free market czech republic to the more socialist slovakia, or quite frankly any example you choose from anywhere in the world. North Korea's govt. healthcare is not the one doling out the punishing competition to America these days.
Anyway, I already said in my post, at some length, which you clearly didn't read, that I supported govt. grants to research as one of the few functions of research. If govts. didn't exist grant foundations would be pure charities, but they would continue to survive.
But even if govt. were to totally disappead, as long as you have just rudimentary law, you can require people to give to a charity of their choice, and this would more than solve whatever problems come up in university and corporate grant financing, should there be any.
Finally, I'm getting pretty tired of this trick. Assume you are more educated than the other poster and try to cow him with your citations. Really it's a little lame.
Most of those stem cell advances were made by Geron Inc, Stem Cells Inc, and Mr. Woo Suk Hwang, whose name has come up more than a few times over the years.
That two American free marketeers and a Korean professor. My main point was it wasn't coming from the USSR, North Korea, Vietnam, or even China which has far more resources than anyone else. Occassionally Europeans do something of note. I read more than once that Dolly wasn't really a close, but I'm not begrudging Europe by any means. The days when Europe leads the world have been waning for some time, and the American era is also drawing to a close. Soon the Chinese will catch up with Korea, as they overthrow their socialist leadership as they cling to their new free market identity, because old systems like europe, and soon sadly America, get more big govt., and thus lose their sense of free enterprise.
Eastern Europe there may be hope for. A lot of room for free market expansion there.
But I've taken my chance and placed my bet on the free market.
And I did say "yay govt. grants" quite a bit back there.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Not to derail things from this interesting discussion of health care, but South Korea is not “an unapologetic advertisement for free market capitalism” unless you define “capitalism” as “Anything that is not North Korea.” South Korea, like Japan and Taiwan, has what is called a “Developmental Economy.” That is, an economy in which the government plays a major role, intervening and guiding the direction of the economy--not the invisible hand of the market. It’s an economic model that’s working very well in East Asia, but it’s not an American or even European free market system. It is a “guided” market, not quite planned but not quite free.
And let's take a little moment here to address the issue of Korea.
As for the environment, I think history has definitely proven that private corporations will take no steps to protect or preserve it unless forced by heavy government regulation. And even then, they’re always searching for loopholes around it. So, the government definitely needs a role in environmental protection.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Dreamtrove
"Finally, I'm getting pretty tired of this trick. Assume you are more educated than the other poster and try to cow him with your citations. Really it's a little lame."
I suspect I am quite a bit more educated than you when it comes to medicine, one of two divergent areas where I have degrees and many, many years of experience.
I didn't have time to finish my discussion of your post(s), and probably will not have time this weekend. Later then.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
American public financing of US University research is often essential for big breakthroughs to be made. That is why things like public funding of stem cell research --- something that seems to have problems because of links to abortion --- are so important.
Private companies simply dont to "blue sky" research --- it's hard to justify on a balance sheet to shareholders -- what they are good at is taking the results of government funded research and productize it.
Nobody turned to GE or Westinghouse in 1940 and told them to build an A Bomb from their own pocket, but the research for the manhatten project latter allowed both those companies to build nuclear plants.
Pratt and Whitneys jet engine business came from designs paid for by H.M government and later supplemented by billions in Pentagon funding. The Boeing 707 that started Boeing in the jet airliner business was based of the Dash-80 which was the prototype of the KC-135 tanker for the US Airforce. No tanker, probably no 707 and Boeing would probably not have been in the jet airliner business. That's ironic because the first jet airliner --- the DeHavilland Comet WAS funded by the company and all R&D came from company funds, it failed and they went broke.
Government blue sky research makes innovation possible because it allows new areas to be explored leaving industry to pick up just those developments that succeed. If all inovation came solely from company funds then either they would suffer huge losses if ideas dont pan out or would simply choose to ignore areas that didnt appear promising --- thus perhaps missing benefitial discoveries.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Dreamtrove:
I'm not sure I entirely understand where you're coming from on this score, so rather than replying per-se I'll make my thoughts clear.
Pure Communism doesn't work.
Pure Socialism (if anyone tried to implement it, which they haven’t) wouldn't work.
Pure Anarchy Wouldn't work.
Pure Capitalism (again if anyone implemented it, which they haven’t) wouldn't work.
Every time you see a working society (that's working as in growth/prosperity, freedoms etc) you see one that takes elements from two or more of the above.
Britain (like most of Europe) for instance, takes capitalism and socialism to produce a working society.
America takes capitalism and mixes in a little socialism and a bit of Anarchism.
Devil's Advocate aside you seem (to me) to be suggesting that a pure Capitalist society, where everything you get is directly paid for by you (rather than indirectly paid for by everyone's taxes) would be ideal. I really don't think such a society would even be sustainable, let alone 'work'.
I'm very much with Fletch2 on this.
Private companies tend to be good with taking proven ideas and making them economically viable.
Coming up with and testing the ideas, not so much.
I really think that a purely capitalist society would stall as surely as a purely socialist or communist society would.
You're assertion that capitalism is what gives people motivations to improve what we've got also seems to be missing data outside of capitalism. Consider the rocket engines designed and built by the USSR in the 60's which are STILL more efficient than those built by NASA or Western 'space corporations'.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME