- 31 Jul 2013 15:14
#14281697
Of course. But free market criticism of public service-provision is precisely focused on the fact that it is inherently, inevitably wasteful and mismanaged.
The public sector lacks tools to gauge the priorities of the public, and hence avoid waste. Further, the incentive structure of public decision-makers is centred on short-term political considerations, again creating inevitable mismanagement.
And consumption is bad? Why? Isn't consumption the sole point of economic production?
Who benefits from waste? In a free market economy, either consumers or producers actually have to pay for it from their own pockets. They are thus motivated to reduce waste. In contrast, when economic decisions are made by public representatives, their motivation is different. Waste no longer comes from their own pockets, and is thus secondary to whatever ideological or political considerations animate them.
What do you mean by "revenue stopping solutions"? Can you give an example of how government provides revenue stopping (or, more accurately, expenditure-stopping) solutions? With rare exceptions such as eradication of smallpox, it seems like government programs tend to be self-perpetuating, with the problems they are designed to solve (education, health, poverty, pollution, energy, crime, etc.) only getting worse, never better.
I don't understand. "Demand" is the willingness of consumers to spend their hard-earned money on products. The total amount of demand will always equal the total amount available for spending. Producers can attempt to divert demand to their particular products, but they cannot create demand out of thin air (let alone "invent", an act inapplicable in this context). Thus more demand for Nike's latest trainers is necessarily coming at the expense of less demand for something else, be it another makers' trainers or some other consumption product.
By "create demand" I take it you mean something along the lines of persuading consumers to pay for a product that they wouldn't otherwise want.
But if those consumers are so easy to manipulate when it comes to spending their own money, aren't those very same people, this time acting as voters, even more easy to manipulate when what's at stake is spending other people's money?
Value is subjective. It is expressed by consumers when they make choices between alternatives. A product has value in the sense that consumers express their willingness to forgo alternative consumption options in exchange for acquiring the product.
Relax. We are far from doomed. In fact, things have never been better for humanity, along every scale or dimension you care to consider. Never.
But besides, society isn't an organism. In particular, society doesn't have a single mind which can prioritise goals applicable for the entire organism. Instead, decisions are always made by individuals (or, at best, a small group of representatives, whether elected or nominated). So it is never the interests of society that guide decisions, but rather the interests of individuals.
The only choice we have is whether we leave decisions in the hands of every individual on the planet, or allow a tiny minority to decide for the rest of us.
Concerning public healthcare, it is only wasteful when it is mismanaged. The US system is a great example of public funding being mismanaged and then swallowed up by profiteering private enterprise.
Of course. But free market criticism of public service-provision is precisely focused on the fact that it is inherently, inevitably wasteful and mismanaged.
The public sector lacks tools to gauge the priorities of the public, and hence avoid waste. Further, the incentive structure of public decision-makers is centred on short-term political considerations, again creating inevitable mismanagement.
Very simple, profit maximisation is bad because it promotes consumption.
And consumption is bad? Why? Isn't consumption the sole point of economic production?
The impetus becomes increasing revenue while at the same decreasing costs. This leads to necessarily greater volume of waste/product.
Who benefits from waste? In a free market economy, either consumers or producers actually have to pay for it from their own pockets. They are thus motivated to reduce waste. In contrast, when economic decisions are made by public representatives, their motivation is different. Waste no longer comes from their own pockets, and is thus secondary to whatever ideological or political considerations animate them.
It does not at any stage seek to provide revenue stopping solutions to problems.
What do you mean by "revenue stopping solutions"? Can you give an example of how government provides revenue stopping (or, more accurately, expenditure-stopping) solutions? With rare exceptions such as eradication of smallpox, it seems like government programs tend to be self-perpetuating, with the problems they are designed to solve (education, health, poverty, pollution, energy, crime, etc.) only getting worse, never better.
They seek to perpetuate waste by inventing demand. The net result is just waste.
I don't understand. "Demand" is the willingness of consumers to spend their hard-earned money on products. The total amount of demand will always equal the total amount available for spending. Producers can attempt to divert demand to their particular products, but they cannot create demand out of thin air (let alone "invent", an act inapplicable in this context). Thus more demand for Nike's latest trainers is necessarily coming at the expense of less demand for something else, be it another makers' trainers or some other consumption product.
You can create demand for just about anything, the question becomes-what is your motive? If the answer is profit, then you're engaged in a vicious free market cycle without end or long term purpose.
By "create demand" I take it you mean something along the lines of persuading consumers to pay for a product that they wouldn't otherwise want.
But if those consumers are so easy to manipulate when it comes to spending their own money, aren't those very same people, this time acting as voters, even more easy to manipulate when what's at stake is spending other people's money?
Value is a meaningless term without context. Promotes value of what?
Value is subjective. It is expressed by consumers when they make choices between alternatives. A product has value in the sense that consumers express their willingness to forgo alternative consumption options in exchange for acquiring the product.
Until society starts acting more like a coherent organism with some semblance of self-awareness, instead of a bunch of bacterial colonies in a petri dish, we are DOOMED.
Relax. We are far from doomed. In fact, things have never been better for humanity, along every scale or dimension you care to consider. Never.
But besides, society isn't an organism. In particular, society doesn't have a single mind which can prioritise goals applicable for the entire organism. Instead, decisions are always made by individuals (or, at best, a small group of representatives, whether elected or nominated). So it is never the interests of society that guide decisions, but rather the interests of individuals.
The only choice we have is whether we leave decisions in the hands of every individual on the planet, or allow a tiny minority to decide for the rest of us.
Free men are not equal and equal men are not free.
Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.
Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.