Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:But there have always been people like that, and this is not even the worst we have faced. We managed two world wars, a civil war, a cold war, internal terrorism and a vicious Canadian invasion without suspending civil liberties.

There was the Japanese internment. I recall Lincoln suspending freedom of speech/assembly and due process to help suppress "copperhead" dissent in the north. I think there was some sort of discrimination against Germans in wake of WW1, although I'm not sure about that one. There was the Red Scare during the cold war, which extended to the government in part.

Not that these were necessarily needed in their own times (look at how well-received they generally are now), but there certainly is a history of this sort of thing to look back on.


Regarding the main point, there is a valid distinction to be made between national defense/criminal justice/immigration control and things that could potentially be handled privately (insurance, schools to an extent, etc). That government is inefficient isn't really on the table in situations where there is no alternative.

This doesn't, however, fully account for the dissonance. A lot of the criticism directed at increased prevalence of government programs isn't simply based on efficiency, but on opposition to increasing government power/scope of influence. In that case, it seems strange to condone something as visible as reductions to due process (and when the result of this is a lack of trial by jury, that would seem to stand in contrast to the more populist sentiments of the right as well).

Green is Best! wrote:Good luck. Anything done by the government has always been done with double the effort and double the cost. (Even our vaunted military - yes, they are effective, but their cost is anything but an efficient use of money).

Are you insinuating that the private sector is a paragon of efficiency? Because it really isn't useful to state that the government is inefficient without offering up an example of a large organization which is efficient.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:

Green is Best! wrote:
There is a long history of use of military tribunals throughout American history. The Civil War and immediately following WWII come to mind off the top of my head. (Nuremburg sound familiar?)

Yep, military trials for uniformed members of the military of an enemy state we declared war on.

While we were prosecuting uniformed members of a foreign military that we were with at war with in WWII, we did not do so after the Civil War. The United States never even declared war against the CSA, as it deemed such an action as a recognition of its sovereignty. The use of tribunal against uniformed and civilian men who sided with the South was there. Its a point of technicality I know, but it reinforces GIB's argument in that tribunals are not only for uniformed members of an opposing nations military.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:But there have always been people like that, and this is not even the worst we have faced. We managed two world wars, a civil war, a cold war, internal terrorism and a vicious Canadian invasion without suspending civil liberties. We'll manage a few fanatics.

Again, I may be a stickler for historical accuracy, but its what I do. We have a long, long history of suspension, or at the very least limitation, of civil liberties during wartime. Lincoln, who was much more of a tyrant then any other president we have had, suspended the writ of habeas corpus, limited freedom of speech, assembly and the press, and of course placed many states, such as Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky and Missouri under martial law. And that is just the Civil War! I don't that I even need to get into the 20th Century...

Kid_Kyoto wrote:Social Security.

It is neither efficient nor effective

Kid_Kyoto wrote:Medicare.

Same as social security

Kid_Kyoto wrote:Medicaid.

same as medicare

Kid_Kyoto wrote:Canadian Health Care System.

When did this become a product of the US Federal government?

JEB_Stuart wrote:

Kid_Kyoto wrote:Social Security.

It is neither efficient nor effective

That's hard to establish. What does efficiency mean here? What does effective mean here? Social Security provides many people with an income after retirement, so it clearly has an effect, even one which is desired. In that sense it is certainly effective. Efficiency in this instance is simply the amount of money lost in processing, but what that amount might be I don't know. I would consider anything exceeding a 75% return to be highly efficient.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

Kid_Kyoto wrote:Medicare.

Same as social security

Medicare is actually really effective, again, it provides the intended service. Though it isn't very efficient. Whether that's an issue with Medicare, or US healthcare as a whole has been debated for roughly 20 years. There's also the obvious demography issues.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

Kid_Kyoto wrote:Medicaid.

same as medicare

As above.

dogma wrote:That's hard to establish. What does efficiency mean here? What does effective mean here? Social Security provides many people with an income after retirement, so it clearly has an effect, even one which is desired. In that sense it is certainly effective. Efficiency in this instance is simply the amount of money lost in processing, but what that amount might be I don't know. I would consider anything exceeding a 75% return to be highly efficient.

More inefficient along the lines of the governments continued "borrowing" from the social security fund, but never putting the money back. I also don't consider $1,500/month to be terribly effective.

dogma wrote:Medicare is actually really effective, though it isn't very efficient. Whether that's an issue with Medicare, or US healthcare as a whole has been debated for roughly 20 years.

I don't see it as being that effective. Not because it denies health care to seniors, but rather because it is so limited. It may sound rather romantic, and idealistic, but I am a strong believer that the people who have worked hard, and earned a comfortable retirement, deserve it. It is one of my more leftist beliefs. It is a Montesquieu-an idea that I sort of picked up and ran with. And we do both agree that it is not efficient.

JEB_Stuart wrote:More inefficient along the lines of the governments continued "borrowing" from the social security fund, but never putting the money back. I also don't consider $1,500/month to be terribly effective.

That's $232 more than the highest US minimum wage.

The efficiency issue that you cite has more to do with a combination of spineless politicians, and an overemphasis on democracy.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
I don't see it as being that effective. Not because it denies health care to seniors, but rather because it is so limited. It may sound rather romantic, and idealistic, but I am a strong believer that the people who have worked hard, and earned a comfortable retirement, deserve it.

Medicare doesn't promise a comfortable retirement, or really comfort of any kind. It promises healthcare, without any consideration of quality or amount. Though obviously more of both is better.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
It is one of my more leftist beliefs. It is a Montesquieu-an idea that I sort of picked up and ran with. And we do both agree that it is not efficient.

We both agree that its inefficient in the sense that it has had its coffers raided over time, which really isn't a matter of efficiency now that I think about it.

JEB_Stuart wrote:]More inefficient along the lines of the governments continued "borrowing" from the social security fund, but never putting the money back. I also don't consider $1,500/month to be terribly effective.

Isn't than an issue of funding, not efficiency or effectiveness? Failing to properly fund a government department then pointing out it doesn't have the money to do the job properly seems a self fulfilling prophecy to me.


I just don't find any traction in the idea that government is always be ineffective. It's based on the idea that a person is essentially selfish, and therefore needs personal profit to be motivated into working hard. Fair enough, the corner store owned by a husband and wife is open all hours and always has fresh fruit. But small businesses emplo a minority of workers, and that's been the case for a long time now*. Larger companies aren't managed by the owners, most shares are held by trusts and by people who have no say beyond a vote at the AGM.

Yet the private sector continues on, despite this seperation of owner and manager. There are sophisticated incentive schemes, and there is the professional reputation of the worker and his own personal pride, so he will work hard for the company despite the profitability of the company directly benefiting him.

In terms of basic profit incentive, government work is little different to the private sector. A look at various privatisation initiatives around the world demonstrate this - there's no magical efficiency to be found in simply becoming private.




*Whether or not small businesses are actually efficient is a whole other debate. On the one hand, there's the profit motive. On the other hand, there's almost every small business I've ever worked with or been served by. At some point economies of scale really overwhelms the profit motive and this is supported in productivity studies.

DO SOMETHING USEFUL, AND MAKE SURE TO TELL US NO.

MY NAME IS REGAN, AND I LOVE MALE SEXUALITY!

dogma wrote:DO SOMETHING USEFUL, AND MAKE SURE TO TELL US NO.

MY NAME IS REGAN, AND I LOVE MALE SEXUALITY!

I...umm, uhh...

Either Dogma is just hammered beyond reason, or one of his friends decided to give us a friendly post...and his name, I guess, is Regan...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:Isn't than an issue of funding, not efficiency or effectiveness? Failing to properly fund a government department then pointing out it doesn't have the money to do the job properly seems a self fulfilling prophecy to me.

Well the government doesn't fund social security, the people do. It is taxed, or rather taken from our paycheck, whether we like it or not. I personally would rather keep my money so I can invest and save it as I see fit.

sebster wrote:I just don't find any traction in the idea that government is always be ineffective. It's based on the idea that a person is essentially selfish, and therefore needs personal profit to be motivated into working hard. Fair enough, the corner store owned by a husband and wife is open all hours and always has fresh fruit. But small businesses employ a minority of workers, and that's been the case for a long time now*. Larger companies aren't managed by the owners, most shares are held by trusts and by people who have no say beyond a vote at the AGM.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, with one minor caveat. Democratic governments tend to be inefficient, while more authoritarian ones tend to be more efficient. It will take a Congress 2 years to debate the merit of rebuilding a bridge, another 2 to get it funded (while of course paying for more pet projects to get the votes to get the funding), and another 2 years to build it. A king could order it done in 6 months, or heads start rolling. Obviously a hyperbolic example, but you get the point.

sebster wrote:Yet the private sector continues on, despite this separation of owner and manager. There are sophisticated incentive schemes, and there is the professional reputation of the worker and his own personal pride, so he will work hard for the company despite the profitability of the company directly benefiting him.

Yep, no disagreement so far.

sebster wrote:In terms of basic profit incentive, government work is little different to the private sector. A look at various privatization initiatives around the world demonstrate this - there's no magical efficiency to be found in simply becoming private.

Of course not, any who argue otherwise are kidding themselves. Idealistically though private companies will do it the most efficiently in order to save and make money, whereas the ideal government will only work to minimize cost. Two different types of efficiency, but both efficient in the ideal nonetheless.

sebster wrote:*Whether or not small businesses are actually efficient is a whole other debate. On the one hand, there's the profit motive. On the other hand, there's almost every small business I've ever worked with or been served by. At some point economies of scale really overwhelms the profit motive and this is supported in productivity studies.

Agreed, but it is a good platform for a stump speech

JEB_Stuart wrote:Either Dogma is just hammered beyond reason, or one of his friends decided to give us a friendly post...and his name, I guess, is Regan...

'twas odd, wasn't it? I mean, Regan?

Well the government doesn't fund social security, the people do. It is taxed, or rather taken from our paycheck, whether we like it or not. I personally would rather keep my money so I can invest and save it as I see fit.

Yeah, savings programs that give control of the money to the investor are pretty solid. In Australia you have 9% of your income placed into a superannuation fund. You can invest it yourself or pick a managed fund to invest it for you. You can access the money once you retire, and can invest more along the way if you want (and there's stong tax incentives to do so).

There is the problem of people making poor investments and losing their money, but I'm not sure that's as big a problem as paying money into a social security program that might be bankrupt by the time you come to collect.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, with one minor caveat. Democratic governments tend to be inefficient, while more authoritarian ones tend to be more efficient. It will take a Congress 2 years to debate the merit of rebuilding a bridge, another 2 to get it funded (while of course paying for more pet projects to get the votes to get the funding), and another 2 years to build it. A king could order it done in 6 months, or heads start rolling. Obviously a hyperbolic example, but you get the point.

Except that democratic governments tend to be more accountable, and therefore more resistant to corruption and nepotism. China's government isn't really a model of efficiency.

Of course not, any who argue otherwise are kidding themselves. Idealistically though private companies will do it the most efficiently in order to save and make money, whereas the ideal government will only work to minimize cost. Two different types of efficiency, but both efficient in the ideal nonetheless.

Yeah, we agree.

Agreed, but it is a good platform for a stump speech

If I ever went into politics then 'good for small business' would be my absolute go-to phrase. Doesn't mean small business is actually that wonderful, though

sebster wrote:

JEB_Stuart wrote:Either Dogma is just hammered beyond reason, or one of his friends decided to give us a friendly post...and his name, I guess, is Regan...

'twas odd, wasn't it? I mean, Regan?

I wasn't entirely sure what was going on. I thought perhaps dogma was imitating (or poking fun at) Ronald Regan or something.

I doubt he would have misspelled Ronald Reagan's name...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:'twas odd, wasn't it? I mean, Regan?

Yeah I always figured Dogma to have a very traditional name (given that his father is a minister) like Thomas, or some total hippie name like Skyler

sebster wrote:Yeah, savings programs that give control of the money to the investor are pretty solid. In Australia you have 9% of your income placed into a superannuation fund. You can invest it yourself or pick a managed fund to invest it for you. You can access the money once you retire, and can invest more along the way if you want (and there's stong tax incentives to do so).

Oh, by the Grace of God, that is an awesome program. I would much rather have our government do it that way! I thought Australian politics was boring!?!? TBH, one of the few things that I supported for President Bush's domestic policy was his push to privatize social security. I was really hoping for an opt out program, or at least a program which would give me greater control over my herd earned wages.

sebster wrote:There is the problem of people making poor investments and losing their money, but I'm not sure that's as big a problem as paying money into a social security program that might be bankrupt by the time you come to collect.

You don't have to tell me that twice...

sebster wrote:Except that democratic governments tend to be more accountable, and therefore more resistant to corruption and nepotism. China's government isn't really a model of efficiency.

Hence why I support the constitutional monarch. It is the ideal blend of both systems. Seriously, you guys had better not ditch the Queen...that would make me very upset...dead serious...

sebster wrote:If I ever went into politics then 'good for small business' would be my absolute go-to phrase. Doesn't mean small business is actually that wonderful, though

Dude, that is election gold you are makin!

The UK government is currently considering enforced privatisation of the pension system. Everyone will be required to open a personal pension plan.

Two problems I see with it are:

1. We've already got serious problems with pension plan mis-selling and the collapse of final salary pension schemes. These are both failures of private enterprise.

2. I've already paid a substantial amount into the mandatory government scheme. If that is going down the tubes, I would like my money back. And I am not the only one.

Ultimately whether you are in a government scheme or a private scheme (or both) you are dependent on the performance of the economy and the stock market.

dogma wrote:

Green is Best! wrote:Good luck. Anything done by the government has always been done with double the effort and double the cost. (Even our vaunted military - yes, they are effective, but their cost is anything but an efficient use of money).

Are you insinuating that the private sector is a paragon of efficiency? Because it really isn't useful to state that the government is inefficient without offering up an example of a large organization which is efficient.

I am insinuating that the private sector is MORE efficient than the government (UPS, FEDEX vs USPS?).

The problem I have with government spending is that it ALWAYS has always follows a politcal agenda.
When private sector spending, it has an economical agenda.

While both have their faults, things done privately generally tend to get done faster and cheaper than when the government does it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

JEB_Stuart wrote:

Kid_Kyoto wrote:Social Security.

It is neither efficient nor effective

That's hard to establish. What does efficiency mean here? What does effective mean here? Social Security provides many people with an income after retirement, so it clearly has an effect, even one which is desired. In that sense it is certainly effective. Efficiency in this instance is simply the amount of money lost in processing, but what that amount might be I don't know. I would consider anything exceeding a 75% return to be highly efficient.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

Kid_Kyoto wrote:Medicare.

Same as social security

Medicare is actually really effective, again, it provides the intended service. Though it isn't very efficient. Whether that's an issue with Medicare, or US healthcare as a whole has been debated for roughly 20 years. There's also the obvious demography issues.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

Kid_Kyoto wrote:Medicaid.

same as medicare

As above.

And all three are going bankrupt. This whole healthcare reform is nothing more than a politcal coverup to hide the fiscal insolvency of these organizations. That is why this new plan is rolling them up into a new, bigger government entity. It is the same thing FDR did. It is not solving any problems, it is just delaying problems for another generation to handle.

UPS does not provide universal service.

Part of the point of the Post Office is to ensure that everyone, wherever they live, has equal access to basic communications.

UPS is more efficient on the routes it serves, but it is less effective in terms of universal service.

Green is Best! wrote:
I am insinuating that the private sector is MORE efficient than the government (UPS, FEDEX vs USPS?).

British Rail was more effective and actually cheaper than the useless private run companies we have now.

The problem I have with government spending is that it ALWAYS has always follows a politcal agenda.
When private sector spending, it has an economical agenda.

.You'll find a lot of private sector spending is also directed at/towards a political agenda as well, be it "evil" Fox News or the "Global warming hoax" perpetuated by the homogeneous unimind that the "liberal media" is.

Green is Best! wrote:
I am insinuating that the private sector is MORE efficient than the government (UPS, FEDEX vs USPS?).

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Green is Best! wrote:
I am insinuating that the private sector is MORE efficient than the government (UPS, FEDEX vs USPS?).

Why would a corporation driven by the motivation to take input and create profit from it be better at base value than a state created service that has no profit to make?

When the tories privatised the water companies in England, it created monopolies with atrocious service and massively increased the price we pay for water to our homes. The amount of water restrictions like hosepipe bans increased by 70% in the area I was living (South West Water) and they more than doubled the water costs citing that due to Cornwall having so much coastline, it was the most costly area in the UK to support...

Scotland didn't privatise their water, they have masses of coastline and a widely scattered population, yet their rates remain significantly lower than the private firms (monopolies).

Public sector fails when governments fail to provide adequate support (ie fail in their obligation to the electorate).

Kilkrazy wrote:UPS does not provide universal service.

Part of the point of the Post Office is to ensure that everyone, wherever they live, has equal access to basic communications.

UPS is more efficient on the routes it serves, but it is less effective in terms of universal service.

Some of that is the government limits what and where UPS/FedEx can deliver. They are not allowed to diliver to PO Boxes, and they are not allowed to deliver mail.

If they were allowed to deliver mail to post boxes, would they deliver a letter to anywhere in the US at the same cost, no matter how far it was sent?

I cannot say the will, but at the same time you cannot say they won't.

While one company might not delivery it I could see several smaller companies working smaller areas, and then using the larger "UPS/FedEx's" to delivery to areas outside of their coverage zones.

Not saying it would be cheaper, but the USPS can't deliver a letter from New York to LA for only .44. Theres a reason they are losing money.

JEB_Stuart wrote:Yeah I always figured Dogma to have a very traditional name (given that his father is a minister) like Thomas, or some total hippie name like Skyler

I think he's Skynet.

Oh, by the Grace of God, that is an awesome program. I would much rather have our government do it that way! I thought Australian politics was boring!?!? TBH, one of the few things that I supported for President Bush's domestic policy was his push to privatize social security. I was really hoping for an opt out program, or at least a program which would give me greater control over my herd earned wages.

Yeah, that was one of Bush's best policies.

And yeah, Australian politics are boring. No-one here has ever been admitted for treatment for an addiction to a Facebook game. Check out the thread I just started.

]Hence why I support the constitutional monarch. It is the ideal blend of both systems. Seriously, you guys had better not ditch the Queen...that would make me very upset...dead serious...

I met a Tibetan guy on the bus ride out of Sikkim, he spent half the trip telling me how he was so happy we still had a monarchy, and that you should respect traditions. He was such a lovely fellow and it made him happy, so I decided to vote to keep the monarchy whenever the referendum comes up again. If it wasn't for him I'd totally vote for it for you, though.

Dude, that is election gold you are makin!

Support small business, the engine room of our economies. Help working families. Freedom. Have pride in our great nation. Twirling, twirling towards freedom.

jbunny wrote:I cannot say the will, but at the same time you cannot say they won't.

While one company might not delivery it I could see several smaller companies working smaller areas, and then using the larger "UPS/FedEx's" to delivery to areas outside of their coverage zones.

Not saying it would be cheaper, but the USPS can't deliver a letter from New York to LA for only .44. Theres a reason they are losing money.

From historical sources, there has never been a private delivery service which will deliver a letter anywhere in the country for the same price.

For obvious reasons as you said, profit etc.

This doesn't matter if you feel social cohesion is not helped by communications or else that it is an unimportant factor in society.

Green is Best! wrote:Well, it may very well be that government run organizations are done better in England. Here in America they are mired in beuracracy and inefficiency. Government agencies do not create wealth. They provide services at taxpayer expense. What would happen government employed 100% of the population? What would get done?

I do not believe that the government needs to provide everything for me. I believe that I should work and provide for myself.

I am not saying zero government. I am saying smaller, limited government.

Smaller government sounds good, except whenever we talk about gutting a local program or facility which provides jobs and useful services to a given place. Then everyone near it wants to keep it.

Clearly not all services can or should be run on the basis of profit. Lots of essential services either won’t happen if one tries to make them profitable, or encounter significant safety issues. Stuff we have socialized in the US include:

The armed forces
The police
The fire departments
The roads and highway system
The postal service
Libraries

We could theoretically privatize any or all of these, but we get into some scary issues with conflicts of interest for a private, profit-based entity vs. the public good. One of the central elements right now of the healthcare debate is whether medical services really should be considered more in the light of the stuff above. Should profit be a primary factor underlying discussions of what medical procedures will be covered, for example?

Regarding the efficiency question, I work in insurance, and I know from experience that there is a great deal of waste, additional work, and inefficiency directly due to the competitive profit-based insurance model. One of the obvious issues is that each insurance company has its own billing and coverage procedures which vary significantly from other companies. Medical billing is very much complicated by the fact that every doctor’s office or hospital must keep track of innumerable different insurance companies’ protocols. Theoretically, if a doctor’s office only needed to bill a single place, it would streamline billing, claims, and appeal procedures enormously. That’s before we even get into issues of errors and appeals in the claims process.

Green is Best! wrote:For example, the Department of Energy was created by Jimmy Carter in the late 1970's to remove America's dependency on oil (since he believed the world's oil supply would be gone by the 1990s). It is now a government agency that employs hundreds of thousands at a cost of billions of dollars each year. But, what do they do?

That's not all they were created to do. They also consolidated a bunch of already existing entities into a single department, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the Federal Energy Administration, the Energy Research and Development Administration, and the Federal Power Commission.

They do a bunch of stuff:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Energy

Wham bars are still about, but one tenth of the size.

Unless my hands are getting bigger...

Kilkrazy wrote:From historical sources, there has never been a private delivery service which will deliver a letter anywhere in the country for the same price.

For obvious reasons as you said, profit etc.

This doesn't matter if you feel social cohesion is not helped by communications or else that it is an unimportant factor in society.

Why is it necessary for communication to be equally costly no matter how far you are trying to communicate?

Transportation's important. I don't think it's suffering because it costs me more to drive to San Diego than Minneapolis. If the cost for travelling anywhere was the same, I couldn't afford to make trips to the store, as I'd be paying for half a trip to Maine.

sebster wrote:I think he's Skynet.

Creepy...

sebster wrote:Yeah, that was one of Bush's best policies.

It really was a grand idea. Its to bad that both parties were so strongly against it.

sebster wrote:And yeah, Australian politics are boring. No-one here has ever been admitted for treatment for an addiction to a Facebook game. Check out the thread I just started.

Well, despite my admiration for the man, Kevin Rudd is rather boring. Now Menzies, he was entertaining!

sebster wrote:I met a Tibetan guy on the bus ride out of Sikkim, he spent half the trip telling me how he was so happy we still had a monarchy, and that you should respect traditions. He was such a lovely fellow and it made him happy, so I decided to vote to keep the monarchy whenever the referendum comes up again. If it wasn't for him I'd totally vote for it for you, though.

See, that is something special we share!

sebster wrote:Support small business, the engine room of our economies. Help working families. Freedom. Have pride in our great nation. Twirling, twirling towards freedom.

Its better then printing your own money.

It really was a grand idea. Its to bad that both parties were so strongly against it.

In fairness it's probably a good thing it didn't work out considering the stock market crash that would have followed three years after it's inception.

Granted, but that couldn't have been foreseen at that time. I still think it was a great idea, and would very much like to see it brought out again.