Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sure public schools eductated almost the entire nation quite well. Some states because of adequate funding were always better than another state...and being a military brat....I went to plenty...but we ALL got great educations. (Of course in Texas where funding was terrible I had to go to Catholic school-another story). But we as a nation had great pride in our education system and people from all over the world wanted to be a part of it.
Can't disagree there, but risk management is a part and parcel of everyday life, and demonstrates that not ideologies but pragmatism must rule the day. Besides, people qualified to produce good things will do so, even with regulations that prevent bad things. Reminds me of one of my ideals: Soichiro Honda. At a time when US automakers were cursing new regulations, as preventing them from doing good things, Honda was putting his brain to work to create what was launched in America as Honda CVCC (now Honda Civic). One could argue that the regulation, others hated, may just have helped Honda gain a foothold in America.
In fact, that whining continued to a later date as well. GM was complaining about regulations forcing it to dump its V6 engine designs. Honda took one of GM's engines, and made it work well within the stipulations of the regulation, and offered GM its help (business partnership). GM refused, and later replaced the entire design. But see, human ingenuity doesn't look for excuses, it looks for opportunities. At least that is my take on the subject.
Back in the early days of this nation, most states had strict regulatory control over corporations. This was also presented as a reason to not accept one of Madison/Jefferson proposals against corporate monopolies within the Bill of Rights. They were wary of corporate influence in government, in its ability to corrupt. And we can see, their fears were warranted.
the problem is that the govt does all my risk management for me. this is what i take issue with. there are loads of treatments and pharmaceuticals that never make it out of the early stages because of the regulations stopping them from doing so. sure, they do stop loads of things like thalidomide but they stop lots of potentially life saving drugs and treatments too, especially ones for rare illnesses where the drug companies don't see sufficient demand
that risk to try experimental drugs, or any drugs for that matter should be my decision, not the govts.
Regulation -by its very nature- comes from someone trying to "get something over on the public", or excessive greed/profit. Thus lobbying, and politicians get into the act via and plug up the works with POOR regulation in favor of those corporations/people that were profiting off the entity needing regulation. Thus, the regulation becomes not only cumbersome, but ineffective. Like I said before if we kept the lobbysist and the money out of government this wouldn't happen.
i agree with elements of this but disagree with the solution. the rich and powerful will always find a way to get what they want from govt. this is precisely why govt shouldn't have that much influence
Yes, you have outlined the throw the baby out with the bathwater syndrome. If a school is bad, it must be because of the government.
What this doesn't recognize is that there are poor private schools -- ones that inflate the grades to satisfy parent expectations.
My aunt and uncles went to NYC public schools in the 1920s and 1930s and received top-notch free education. They later went off to free City College and then went to Ivy medical and law schools. There was nothing about their public education that anyone could criticize.
If the same schools are poor now, it isn't because they're under the "public" blanket.
Come on. Part of the reason why people oppose "big government" is because the government doesn't have the same incentive to be efficient as private entities (not necessarily a business). With the resources that the government has at its disposal (more than a quarter of the GDP and decades with a material), you'd think that the government could do so many things better than it does.
Schools is an example cited. Despite being a libertarian, I have little issue with public schools existing, but that does not mean radical reform is not needed. In some public school districts, administrators outnumber teachers. American students regularly perform below other developed nations despite spending significantly more per student. Private schools also tend to score higher on standardized tests (which admittedly aren't the be all and end all of academic achievement) while generally spending less per student.
the problem is that the govt does all my risk management for me. this is what i take issue with. there are loads of treatments and pharmaceuticals that never make it out of the early stages because of the regulations stopping them from doing so. sure, they do stop loads of things like thalidomide but they stop lots of potentially life saving drugs and treatments too, especially ones for rare illnesses where the drug companies don't see sufficient demand
that risk to try experimental drugs, or any drugs for that matter should be my decision, not the govts.
Come on. Part of the reason why people oppose "big government" is because the government doesn't have the same incentive to be efficient as private entities (not necessarily a business). With the resources that the government has at its disposal (more than a quarter of the GDP and decades with a material), you'd think that the government could do so many things better than it does.
There also aren't layers of management in the federal government drawing seven figure salaries and CEOs with nine figure golden parachutes.
From a spending perspective, the federal government is a large insurance company with an army. There aren't these vast resources.
As far as efficiency, there are many examples. Notably, the Social Security system, which operates on a 1% overhead rate.
There also aren't layers of management in the federal government drawing seven figure salaries and CEOs with nine figure golden parachutes.
From a spending perspective, the federal government is a large insurance company with an army. There aren't these vast resources.
As far as efficiency, there are many examples. Notably, the Social Security system, which operates on a 1% overhead rate.
nah, but it is kinda suspicious that when they leave govt they generally go onto become those ceo's with 9 figure golden parachutes, especially if they've helped ram through some dubious legislation like the prescription drug bill, obamacare, sarbannes -oxley, frank-dodd etc.
the federal govt has the ability to tax and borrow trillions and depending wehere you stand on the federal reserve, they have the ability to print. those are pretty vast and pretty destructive to me
Although that particular policy is stupid, that isn't necessarily a free market policy. Also, all governments either punish you or don't provide services if you do not pay their fees. Nothing comes for free and how do you think the government collects revenue?
If I "forget" to pay my taxes, the government will forcibly take my pay, probably take my possession, and possibly put me in prison. Try "forgetting" to renew a business license or a drivers' license.
EDIT: I should also add that a more sensible option would have been the county government treating it as a type of "fire insurance". Pay the $75 fee and the fire department will put out the fire at no further cost if you pay it. If you haven't, you will be charged a couple of thousand dollars after they put it out and that is a fee that will be strictly collected.
There is another reason why government sucks. It took me less than three minutes to come up with a solution that was more logical, humane, and practical than what they county council (or whatever) probably spent hours debating and let someone lose their possession and pets over.
The fact is that is a model that a privitized fire department would likely have to use. Pay your fire insurance or let it lapse. Furthermore the second policy would be unlikely since people would just not pay the $75 if they knew that the FD would just put it out and charge them a couple thousand. Just look at health insurance if you let it lapse for a month they will use that to not cover anything no matter if you try to pay it later.
With the exeception of title insurance every other type of Insurance that is the way it works. You cannot buy insurance for something after the fact otherwise no one would buy insurance.
The fact is that is a model that a privitized fire department would likely have to use. Pay your fire insurance or let it lapse. Furthermore the second policy would be unlikely since people would just not pay the $75 if they knew that the FD would just put it out and charge them a couple thousand. Just look at health insurance if you let it lapse for a month they will use that to not cover anything no matter if you try to pay it later.
With the exeception of title insurance every other type of Insurance that is the way it works. You cannot buy insurance for something after the fact otherwise no one would buy insurance.
i have insurance on my boiler, my mobile phone, etc. my boiler would cost about $1500 if things went really went pete tong, i pay insurance though. i also have a breakdown insurance. i don't need it, i can pay the money if my car broke down but i prefer the insurance. same thing imo
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.