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.
Oh wow. There was one instance in history that doesn't support my point. Well that proves that I'm wrong and you're right. Please excuse my ignorance.
Or you could turn on the common sense part of your brain for about five seconds. Inefficient companies are a thousand times more likely to die than inefficient government agencies. Do you know what the word "competition" means?
Absolutely correct, which is why state governmental agencies contract out healthcare services to the private sector. Even government knows the private sector does it better.
Oh wow. There was one instance in history that doesn't support my point. Well that proves that I'm wrong and you're right. Please excuse my ignorance.
Or you could turn on the common sense part of your brain for about five seconds. Inefficient companies are a thousand times more likely to die than inefficient government agencies. Do you know what the word "competition" means?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamBarrow
Yeah actually that instance does not go against my point after all.
But even so, there may be government agencies that close down due to inefficiency. But it's probably about as common as an ice age.
I gave an example from my personal experience. Perhaps you could do the same? If it happened to me, it can't be too unusual.
And as for pgh's comment, which I just now saw b/c I have him on ignore, by Sam's criteria, we'd have just gotten paid for not doing anything when the patient load went down.
Speaking of "competition", the HD once had a program manager who was career climbing and wanted to "outsource" the imm. clinics. No one wanted to take them over. Sometimes govt. has to be the provider of lasat resort.
Speaking of "competition", the HD once had a program manager who was career climbing and wanted to "outsource" the imm. clinics. No one wanted to take them over. Sometimes govt. has to be the provider of lasat resort.
That really has no bearing on the point that I'm making. I never said the private sector could provide every service in the universe. I just said it was more efficient.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
I gave an example from my personal experience. Perhaps you could do the same? If it happened to me, it can't be too unusual.
And as for pgh's comment, which I just now saw b/c I have him on ignore, by Sam's criteria, we'd have just gotten paid for not doing anything when the patient load went down.
You pointed out one instance. How about you go fetch a list of government agencies that have disappeared in the last ten years, and then another list of businesses that have failed in the last ten years. Then we'll see how they stack up.
This doesn't require an understanding of economics, just the ability to open your mind to common sense for a couple of seconds.
Yeah actually that instance does not go against my point after all.
If anything it supports your point, because people left their "governmental" clinic and chose the private sector
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
And as for pgh's comment, which I just now saw b/c I have him on ignore, by Sam's criteria, we'd have just gotten paid for not doing anything when the patient load went down.
Thats not at all what Sam said. Maybe you'll have him on ignore soon as well
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
Speaking of "competition", the HD once had a program manager who was career climbing and wanted to "outsource" the imm. clinics. No one wanted to take them over. Sometimes govt. has to be the provider of lasat resort.
Actually thats an indication of where you are wrong. If they were "efficient" companies would have bought them, but by your own admission no one wanted to take on the inefficient clinic you worked in. You couldnt even give it away
There wasn't "robust growth" until FDR intervened. Unemployment was getting worse; GNP had halved since 1929 and the nation was experiencing deflation. Looking at graphs, like the ones below, and conclude that FDR made it worse requires a strong set of ideological blinders.
You know what that first chart shows? The fact that in January of 1938 the congress agreed to start funding military to the tune of $800 million. By July of 1938 there were reports of increased military readiness but other deficiencies were pointed out such as "organization, equipment and personnel."
You can see the point, the very tip, at which the War Economy began.
Anyways. the point wasn't that he made it worse. If I said that I certainly didn't mean it. It would be silly to say he made it worse. The more correct statement is he prolonged the recovery with his interventionist policies.
He could have done some of the works programs and the aid to the starving and unemployed and that, in itself, would have helped tremendously. But that wasn't all he did. Some of the counterproductive programs were:
The AAA which was later found unconstitutional (which showed pretty heavily Roosevelt's tendencies towards redistribution).
The NRA which is what set off wage controls. It established a minimum wage and also set the number of hours each industry could work. Part of the NRA also included the right for trade unions to organize. Those things are counter productive.
The Federal Art Project. Couldn't go without the cult of personality if you want to be reelected four times.
The Federal Theater Project.
The NLRA.
The Federal Writers Project.
The National Housing Act (parts of it were a good idea like the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, others like FM, not so much).
The National Youth Administration.
Raising taxes.
To name a few.
Another FDR era PBS documentary.
Video: The Civilian Conservation Corps | Watch American Experience Online | PBS Video (http://video.pbs.org/video/1309577149 - broken link)
Quote:
The WPA program originated under a condition of mass unemployment and misery of gigantic proportions. During its operation it provided employment at one time or another for a total of about 8,500,000 different individuals. This means that during the 8 years in which the program mas ill operation nearly one-fourth of all families in the United States were dependent on WPA wages for their support. Peak WPA employment was reached in the fiscal year 1939 when it averaged well over 3,000,000 persons; it declined to an average of 2,000,000 ill fiscal 1940, to 1,709,000 in 1941, and, as war production got well under way, to 271,000 in fiscal 1943, the last year of operation of the program.
Among major construction accomplishments of the WPA were the building or improving of 651,000 miles of roads, the erection or improvement of 125,110 buildings of all kinds, the installation of 16,100 miles of water mains and distribution lines, the installation of 24,300 miles of sewerage facilities, and the construction and improvement of many airrport facilities, including landing fields, runways, and terminal buildings. The service projects covered a wide range, from the serving of hot school lunches and the maintenance of child-health centers to the operation of recreation centers and literary classes. These service projects employed the abilities and training of otherwise jobless white-collar and professional of workers, and provided many needed and valued community services.
To thousands of the Nation's towns and cities the WPA was important as a social and economic stabilizer in a period of serious stress. Officials of State and local governments who were in close touch with local unemployment situations welcomed the aid of the organization in providing work and wages for the needy jobless. Sponsors' contributions provided $2,837,713,000, or more than one-fifth of the total cost of WPA operated projects, of which the Federal share was $10,136,743,000.
The unemployed of the Nation wanted work and wages; they did not want to loaf in idleness on a dole, and WPA helped in some-degree to maintain skills and work habits by cooperating with the communities in providing useful jobs for them. Although the earnings of WPA workers varied according to skill and location, they averaged only $54.33 a month over the 8-year period.
On private vs public employment: It doesn't matter at all who gives you a paycheck. A teacher, policemen, meat inspector and firefigher is every bit employed as a butcher, baker and candlestick maker and their value to society is equally valuable.
This notion of the right that only private sector workers produce value is silly. As Kruman writes:
Moreover, apart from conservatives rejecting Keynesianism outright, they're more than willing to accept it when they're in charge. This is from the right-wing Weekly Standard:
What could you have done with $533 million dollars that was wasted on Solyndra (who by the way are now eligible for a $13,000 per employee payout because they lost their jobs due to a dying sector of the economy and will also be eligible for UE)?
I can tell you with near 100% certainty that almost every single business on the planet that built up that sort of cash on hand would certainly have a far better ability to invest in themselves then say, Obama, or Chu. Why you ask? Because they're all things political and their only desire is to get reelected and to gain more power and control over the country. That's it.
Whereas a private company wants more profits and returns to investors.
Last edited by BigJon3475; 11-26-2011 at 09:51 AM..
Actually thats an indication of where you are wrong. If they were "efficient" companies would have bought them, but by your own admission no one wanted to take on the inefficient clinic you worked in. You couldnt even give it away
Wow, an open mind on CD. That's a new one.
It's assumed that the private sector is more efficient, but is it? Social Security operates on a 1% overhead rate -- better than any financial company or insurance company.
And you make the argument about social security and government can be as efficient? Government created the "trust fund" and then summarily robbed it blind. Now, what's its overhead operating cost when you add in the $15.368 trillion that it's underfunded?
Last edited by BigJon3475; 11-26-2011 at 09:52 AM..
Don't kill the messenger. That's how it is at a health dept. Why does anyone think a private entity could run one more efficiently?
Oh, IDK. How about you try adding in ridiculous pensions into those equations. You know, the ones crippling nearly a dozen states.
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.
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.
