orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (07/01/85)
> From Clayton Cramer: > Government, because it is a monopoly, doesn't have the competitive > pressures to improve service if it screws up; a private company that > screws up loses its market share, and the stockholders or the proprietor > will take steps to solve the problem by removing managers that don't > do their jobs. The government doesn't have bad intentions in this area --- > it just can't figure out that it has problems because it can't lose > market share. As I have pointed out before, I will point out again that in a multiparty democratic system there certainly *are* checks on the governmental monopoly: namely elections. Moreover there are officials who will help provide government services: namely Congresspersons. Congresspersons are particularly anxious to help cut bureaucratic red tape to help their constituents because they know this wins votes. Some Congresspeople maintain their office almost solely on the basis of constituent service for good and ill. When people feel that the goverment's inefficiency is simply costing too much then they will vote for politicians who promise to cut out the inefficiencies. This is partly what happened with the Proposition 13 Movement and the later election of Ronald Reagan. In fact, I personally agree that there is enormous inefficiency in social spending and the welfare system. I believe many of the functions of the welfare system could be better served by replacing it with a negative income tax. Unfortunately I do not see Reagan's meatax approach to social spending as truly promoting efficiency in social spending. Nor do I think that solely private efforts would reduce poverty and hunger. The fact is that before the Great Society programs millions of Americans went hungry. Now very few people go hungry. On the other hand what check is there on a Standard oil which controls %100 of the oil market? tim sevener whuxl!orb
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (07/04/85)
>/* orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) / 11:55 am Jul 1, 1985 */ >Congresspersons are particularly anxious >to help cut bureaucratic red tape to help their constituents because >they know this wins votes. You must have arrived at this conclusion mystically, because the facts certainly don't support it. >Nor do I think that solely private efforts would reduce poverty and >hunger. You mean that solely private efforts would not reduce poverty and hunger to a level which you believe is proper, not that solely private efforts would not reduce poverty and hunger at all as your statement implies, don't you? >The fact is that before the Great Society programs millions >of Americans went hungry. Now very few people go hungry. This is not sufficient evidence from which to draw this conclusion. You have overlooked the fact (among others) that we are a much wealthier nation today. >On the other hand what check is there on a Standard oil which controls >%100 of the oil market? Tim, the management of Standard Oil wants you to come down to the next stockholders' meeting and repeat that. :-) > tim sevener whuxl!orb Mike Sykora
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/09/85)
> > From Clayton Cramer: > > Government, because it is a monopoly, doesn't have the competitive > > pressures to improve service if it screws up; a private company that > > screws up loses its market share, and the stockholders or the proprietor > > will take steps to solve the problem by removing managers that don't > > do their jobs. The government doesn't have bad intentions in this area --- > > it just can't figure out that it has problems because it can't lose > > market share. > > As I have pointed out before, I will point out again that in a > multiparty democratic system there certainly *are* checks on the > governmental monopoly: namely elections. 1. You have to take all or nothing with the governmental system. If you liked Carter's foreign policy, but hated his economic policies (or vice versa), you have to vote for one or the other --- there's no way to get a little of each. In a market system, if you don't like the service from one company, you get to pick from competitors without having to abandon every other company you buy from. 2. Democratic systems have had this bad habit of being subverted by democratic means, usually in times of crisis. Argentina, in 1945, when Peron was elected. Germany, in 1933, and Italy, in 1922. > Moreover there are officials who will help provide government services: > namely Congresspersons. Congresspersons are particularly anxious > to help cut bureaucratic red tape to help their constituents because > they know this wins votes. Some Congresspeople maintain their office > almost solely on the basis of constituent service for good and ill. > Cut red tape? You mean the government is too big? How did it get there? And how does "democratic socialism" prevent it from happening? It can't. (Alas, no system seems to be able to.) > When people feel that the goverment's inefficiency is simply costing too > much then they will vote for politicians who promise to cut out the > inefficiencies. This is partly what happened with the Proposition 13 > Movement and the later election of Ronald Reagan. > Really like having Reagan as President? Wouldn't it be better to have a less radical way of dealing with inefficiency? > In fact, I personally agree that there is enormous inefficiency in > social spending and the welfare system. I believe many of the functions > of the welfare system could be better served by replacing it with > a negative income tax. Unfortunately I do not see Reagan's meatax > approach to social spending as truly promoting efficiency in social > spending. > President Nixon made an honest attempt to implement a negative income tax, for the reasons you state. The special interests that form the welfare state wouldn't allow it --- it would put too many welfare workers and administrators out of work. > Nor do I think that solely private efforts would reduce poverty and > hunger. The fact is that before the Great Society programs millions > of Americans went hungry. Now very few people go hungry. > Gee. I remember a big upset a while back when Ed Meese said that very few people go hungry. Are you agreeing with him? Actually, I used to be supportive of a liberal welfare state, and I have only ideological opposition to it now, nothing heart-felt. But the *way* the welfare state has been administered angers me so much, that I would rather it go away, and we take our chances with private organization, than have another administration of it like the last few. If the welfare state had been properly administered to help those in need, as opposed to those who wanted a handout, it would be in no danger. > On the other hand what check is there on a Standard oil which controls > %100 of the oil market? > > tim sevener whuxl!orb 1. Standard Oil never controlled 100% of the oil market. For a short while, they controlled 95% of the distribution system, and about 90% of the domestic production. Their power was broken more by the discovery of oil in California than anything else. 2. Standard Oil's power stemmed largely from bribing state legislatures to give Standard Oil legal authority that other oil companies did not have: condemning right of ways for pipelines. Standard Oil is a result of allowing government so much power; it's not the result of insufficient government power. 3. Standard Oil's power also stemmed from ferocious price-cutting to keep the little guys little. This constant price war, while bad for the little guys, benefitted most Americans by keeping prices down.