Am I Becoming a Paultard? [Amerikan Politics]

[Nessus]

Do you remember how you were once able to have a cogent discussion? Neither do I.

And there it is.

[Aimless]

You know, it's weird how people should have the time, energy and ability to accomplish any given thing and yet in reality very often do not. It's almost as if they exist within a greater context full of a million time/energy thieves, rather than existing in an idealised scenario.

[GGT]

I'm sorry, but that is a pretty miserable example. Not all medical care is emergency care. And there's no such thing as emergency education. Education and [most] medicine is certainly important, but not so time-constrained as to prevent people from making choices within a competitive market.

Emergency care (the kind Khen means) is very expensive, with little "choice" involved. It's the type that often leads to great medical debt, and sometimes bankruptcy.

We've had threads about that over the years....jog your memory. A compound fracture on a sports field leads to ambulance/EMT charges, ER fees, specialist referrals, surgery-anasthesia-post-op care, and the bill will be six figures. That's before adding PT and rehab. A head or spinal cord injury might mean a medical helicopter to a regional trauma center, and the bill can approach a million dollars.

Educational choices aren't 'time-contrained', but are definitely tied to affordable addresses. Since property taxes fund a majority of public education, and districts are drawn in ways that 'segregate' poor from wealthy areas---and gated communities---there's no 'competitive market' option for poor/working poor. No amount of finagling with vouchers or charitable scholarships can bridge that gap.

Meanwhile, I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that Romney is a great manager but a middling candidate. I would probably vote for Obama if Santorum was the nominee. And, while Ron Paul has major ideological flaws and isn't a viable leader, his success would propel the national discussion in some healthy ways when it comes to extracting the government from education and healthcare (to some extent). What the fuck is happening to me.

Romney is looking like the poster child for the Peter Principle. IMO, being a Governor was his upward limit, and he's over his head on the national 'stage'. Just like Perry. Only Romney has been running for POTUS for about six years now, has tons of money (his own and PAC/super-PAC), and the GOP is so fucked up they can't present a decent field of candidates.

I think Ron Paul has already accomplished a great deal as a leader, by getting people to pay attention to monetary policy and the Federal Reserve...and forcing "conservatives" to re-examine our interventionist/military foreign policies. So far, he's the only candidate suggesting American Exceptionalism shouldn't mean trying to be a "Global Empire" or the world's police. He's one of the rare politicians saying we have enough nation-building to do at home, without trying to fix other nations, and telling them what to do.

Beyond that, the whole St. Reagan, Tea Party, and Libertarian notion that "government is our problem and Freee Markets" are the solution falls short. Education and Healthcare have evolved way beyond 20th century principles of supply/demand economics, or a boot-strap mentality.

[Aimless]

To be fair, much of the high spending on emergency care is due to inadequate spending on non-emergency care.

I'm reminded of another good article by Atul Gawande:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...a_fact_gawande

[Enoch the Red]

Beyond that, the whole St. Reagan, Tea Party, and Libertarian notion that "government is our problem and Freee Markets" are the solution falls short. Education and Healthcare have evolved way beyond 20th century principles of supply/demand economics, or a boot-strap mentality.

Eh?

I guess if you repeat something often enough it must be true.

[Khendraja'aro]

To be fair, much of the high spending on emergency care is due to inadequate spending on non-emergency care.

I'm reminded of another good article by Atul Gawande:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...a_fact_gawande

But even there - I mean, it's not like we have 100% reliable diagnosis all the time. It's not as if complications don't exist.

You can't reliably plan how much your hospital stay will cost. I mean, take my kidney stones. I now have had several of them - with some I just stayed overnight, another one warranted almost a week.

That's another thing the "free market" is not very good at: If you don't know how much you'll need.

[Aimless]

Honestly I think they should just take your kidneys and find out what's wrong with them

[GGT]

Eh?

I guess if you repeat something often enough it must be true.

Yes, that's what the Freee Market/Freee Enterprise folks keep doing----repeating the mantra that everything is a "market", and freee market principles should always apply. They're conflating Health and Education with other "commodity" markets, taking a short term view, and confusing National Investments with Venture Capital profits. As if trading or hedging soy beans or pig belly futures is the equivalent to having an educated and healthy populace.

[Enoch the Red]

Is this the rhetorical equivalent of, "I'm rubber, you're glue?"

[GGT]

Is this the rhetorical equivalent of, "I'm rubber, you're glue?"

If I didn't reply accordingly, or you have something else to say....spit it out, man.

[Enoch the Red]

If I didn't reply accordingly, or you have something else to say....spit it out, man.

I just think it's funny that someone who can readily recognize the dangers and limitations of a monopoly in business and finance can, at the same time, think that an institutional monopoly is capable of delivering the best, most efficient service possible.

But I'm sure that government has evolved way beyond that.

[earthJoker]

I just think it's funny that someone who can readily recognize the dangers and limitations of a monopoly in business and finance can, at the same time, think that an institutional monopoly is capable of delivering the best, most efficient service possible.

That's absolutely not a contradiction. I have a similar opinion: Free markets are the most efficient solution if possible. Free markets are not always possible as natural monopolies exist. State monopolies tend to do better than private monopolies -> The government should step in when the free market fails / when monopolies exist.

[Nessus]

I guess, in a small way, the question is whether you really want the best possible companies wringing out the best possible profits out of death, and dying people. I have been told, by informed sources, that the chimneys exude a distasteful smell, which might trouble investors... But only childish, terribly childish people would resort to argumentation such as death panels!

[Ominous Gamer]

I just think it's funny that someone who can readily recognize the dangers and limitations of a monopoly in business and finance can, at the same time, think that an institutional monopoly is capable of delivering the best, most efficient service possible.

But I'm sure that government has evolved way beyond that.

I don't agree with what you're implying.

[Loki]

That's absolutely not a contradiction. I have a similar opinion: Free markets are the most efficient solution if possible. Free markets are not always possible as natural monopolies exist. State monopolies tend to do better than private monopolies -> The government should step in when the free market fails / when monopolies exist.

Ignore the fact that most monopolies that do exist have been made monopolies by the state.

[Nessus]

Ignore the fact that most monopolies that do exist have been made monopolies by the state.

Yeah, why was she wearing that skirt? Tsk tsk!

[earthJoker]

Ignore the fact that most monopolies that do exist have been made monopolies by the state.

Two question:
1st: How do you come to that conclusion that ignore the fact? I explicitly stated natural monopolies and not those made by state.
2nd: How is that relevant to my statement? Even if you remove those, you still have to take cares to the ones that are left.

[Loki]

Two question:
1st: How do you come to that conclusion that ignore the fact? I explicitly stated natural monopolies and not those made by state.
2nd: How is that relevant to my statement? Even if you remove those, you still have to take cares to the ones that are left.

Most monopolies are by utilities firms. Most such firms have been granted a monopoly by the government.

Monopolies tend to be created due to high entry costs and economies of scale. Most of the former are created through regulations, and the latter have been steadily decreasing due to various technological breakthroughs. It's not a coincidence that there are fewer and fewer monopolies in the developed world.

[earthJoker]

You haven't answered any of my questions, why using the quote function at all?

[Loki]

Two question:
1st: How do you come to that conclusion that ignore the fact? I explicitly stated natural monopolies and not those made by state.
2nd: How is that relevant to my statement? Even if you remove those, you still have to take cares to the ones that are left.

No you did not. Read your statement more carefully. You excluded state-owned monopolies. I'm not referring to those.

[Aimless]

I especially appreciate the monopoly on medical education

[Enoch the Red]

That's absolutely not a contradiction. I have a similar opinion: Free markets are the most efficient solution if possible. Free markets are not always possible as natural monopolies exist. State monopolies tend to do better than private monopolies -> The government should step in when the free market fails / when monopolies exist.

And what, exactly, makes education a natural monopoly, and what makes you think the free market has failed in education?

[earthJoker]

No you did not. Read your statement more carefully. You excluded state-owned monopolies. I'm not referring to those.

Actually I never said owned. Let's rephrase again what I said. I believe if free market fails, the outcome can be improved by goverment intervention.

And what, exactly, makes education a natural monopoly, and what makes you think the free market has failed in education?

Free market has to fail in education because you have to have full knowledge about something to make a "free market decision" especially on the demand side. Education is the process of transferring knowledge.
It has failed when you want to have as many people as possible educated, it has not failed if you want to have the best education you can get for a few. Now what is more important? Can we maybe even have both?

[Loki]

Actually I never said owned. Let's rephrase again what I said. I believe if free market fails, the outcome can be improved by goverment intervention.

Thank you for that thought, Mr. Obvious. I doubt any but hard-core libertarians would disagree. The problem is that a vast majority of government interventions aren't in areas of market failure.

Free market has to fail in education because you have to have full knowledge about something to make a "free market decision" especially on the demand side. Education is the process of transferring knowledge.

That's not what education means, and there's hardly any specific firm or sector that have a monopoly on information (which is what you're really referring to). I don't follow the rest of your argument. Just because the education industry would provide one sort of information (i.e. knowledge of math, history, science, etc.), doesn't mean that it would have a monopoly on another sort of knowledge (i.e. ranking of the quality of educational institutions). In fact, there are plenty of private institutions that currently provide good information about providers of education.

[Nessus]

That's not what education means, and there's hardly any specific firm or sector that have a monopoly on information (which is what you're really referring to). I don't follow the rest of your argument. Just because the education industry would provide one sort of information (i.e. knowledge of math, history, science, etc.), doesn't mean that it would have a monopoly on another sort of knowledge (i.e. ranking of the quality of educational institutions). In fact, there are plenty of private institutions that currently provide good information about providers of education.

I read it as something deeper (the English leaves something to be desired), that without a working knowledge of how the world, ie. the market operates, one cannot function within the market. Leaving education to the markets alone would soon produce a class of helots without the ability to read or write, that sort of thing. Conversely, and this was not in the original argument, leaving information to the free markets alone would only produce the most desired information, not the most factual. Which may or may not be in anyone's best interests

[earthJoker]

I doubt any but hard-core libertarians would disagree.

I disagree. Hard-core libertarians deny the existence of market failure in the first place. And many of those who accept that fact still think any governmental intervention can only make things worse. So no, this is not obvious.

The problem is that a vast majority of government interventions aren't in areas of market failure.

I agree with that.

That's not what education means, and there's hardly any specific firm or sector that have a monopoly on information (which is what you're really referring to). I don't follow the rest of your argument. Just because the education industry would provide one sort of information (i.e. knowledge of math, history, science, etc.), doesn't mean that it would have a monopoly on another sort of knowledge (i.e. ranking of the quality of educational institutions). In fact, there are plenty of private institutions that currently provide good information about providers of education.

You need at least some sort of education to be able to interact with those, and the companies that provide you information on how to get information just leads to the next problem. You need to choose that company first.

I read it as something deeper (the English leaves something to be desired), that without a working knowledge of how the world, ie. the market operates, one cannot function within the market.

Sums it up quite nicely.

[Enoch the Red]

Free market has to fail in education because you have to have full knowledge about something to make a "free market decision" especially on the demand side. Education is the process of transferring knowledge.
It has failed when you want to have as many people as possible educated, it has not failed if you want to have the best education you can get for a few. Now what is more important? Can we maybe even have both?

I don't think your conclusion logically follows from your argument. In fact, I'll go so far as to say your non sequitur contradicts itself. If education would benefit from being a state monopoly, as you seem to be suggesting, then it follows from your earlier line of reasoning that it would likely do so because it is a natural monopoly. And yet, there is very little in education that seems to suggest it would benefit from the economics of scale. Likewise, there is little evidence to support the fact that a free market educational system would not be as successful in meeting your stated metrics. A home schooled child could, theoretically, receive as good an education as a child in the public school systems, at a much lower cost per student. By the same token Charter Schools, private schools, and parochial schools have all, at one time or another, provided excellent educations to children, often in situations where the public school system has failed that child.

It seems to me that education is one of the areas that no such monopoly can, or should exist, because there is rarely a single educational solution that will work in every case. To say that public education is the best, or only way to teach our children is to willfully ignore tried and true alternatives.

[earthJoker]

I don't think your conclusion logically follows from your argument. In fact, I'll go so far as to say your non sequitur contradicts itself. If education would benefit from being a state monopoly, as you seem to be suggesting, then it follows from your earlier line of reasoning that it would likely do so because it is a natural monopoly.

I actually don't think that education should be a state monopoly, but I believe that the state should provide a certain level of education.

And yet, there is very little in education that seems to suggest it would benefit from the economics of scale. Likewise, there is little evidence to support the fact that a free market educational system would not be as successful in meeting your stated metrics. A home schooled child could, theoretically, receive as good an education as a child in the public school systems, at a much lower cost per student.

If it is done by parents, no, I don't think a parent can reach the same level in teaching as a professional teacher. On the other hand, we simply won't find enough teachers to teach everyone at home professionally.

By the same token Charter Schools, private schools, and parochial schools have all, at one time or another, provided excellent educations to children, often in situations where the public school system has failed that child.

For those who can afford it.

It seems to me that education is one of the areas that no such monopoly can, or should exist, because there is rarely a single educational solution that will work in every case. To say that public education is the best, or only way to teach our children is to willfully ignore tried and true alternatives.

I agree, but that doesn't mean that the opposite is true.

[Enoch the Red]

If it is done by parents, no, I don't think a parent can reach the same level in teaching as a professional teacher. On the other hand, we simply won't find enough teachers to teach everyone at home professionally.

I think that would be entirely dependent on the parent and the teacher.

For those who can afford it.

Charter schools don't usually have an associated cost, (beyond the usual property tax/local, state and federal taxes) and many private schools have need and merit based scholarships.

[earthJoker]

I think that would be entirely dependent on the parent and the teacher.

In general professionals tend to do better than amateurs, in any field. Of course, some parents will outperform the average teachers.

Charter schools don't usually have an associated cost, (beyond the usual property tax/local, state and federal taxes) and many private schools have need and merit based scholarships.

The concept of charter schools is new to me, from reading into it, it doesn't look like private or free market at all. Neither are FAFSA scholarships a form of free market.