User Tag List

First 10181920212230 Last

Results 191 to 200 of 303

  1. #191
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark
    The universal basic income idea involves the payment of an allowance to all, that's everyone, irrespective of their existing wealth or work, or lack of either, and its at or only just slightly above subsistence. Its the only thing you will ever receive from the state and the state will not provide any other services free at the point of delivery to anyone. You have that allowance and if you want to live on that allowance and aspire to nothing more than that, that's fine you go right ahead and do that.
    I don't have a problem with a safety net, even for those who don't want to work. Currently, 46 million Americans receive food stamps. Am I to understand that you don't support free universal healthcare?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark
    it also relieves businesses of the need to pay minimum wages and provide liveable wages and provide work, which most business were never set up to provide anyway, it has always been at best a secondary objective or a distant, distant tertiary objective after profits and market share growth.
    You didn't state this explicitly but are you suggesting government ownership of businesses?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark
    I would suggest stakeholder grants, these could be something like a single payment to voters/tax payers at the age of majority, in the UK it was planned that they would be bonds which would mature for a generation turning eighteen, now the conservative party at a stroke abolished them and just gave the money to the high earning thieves in the city who had wrecked the economy as a bonus but the public could give a shit, they were blinkered into believing it was just another benefit for the feckless anyway.
    Republicans have suggested something similar to this: healthcare savings accounts. I certainly think it's a much better idea than Social Security.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark
    If individuals join together they will have more start up capital but that's the case already, I would suspect that co-operatives or co-management would be more popular under such a regime because no one is going to decide they dont want a return on their investment, you understand?
    I believe this already exists in a capitalist system in the form of stakeholders/investors.
    @Lark do you think a society modeled after your vision can successfully compete with a capitalist system? I think they'd be at a severe disadvantage because greed is a great motivator and those who own property have a higher stake in succeeding than those who don't. Finally, who'd be in charge of collecting the pot and redistributing it? Concentrate wealth and power and you get lots of corruption.
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  2. #192
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    Now this is something I hadn't considered. Thanks. New thinking is rare and I truely haven't encountered such an idea before. Now I have something to chew on.
    Check out Samuel Brittan's writing, its available online, I think, he had a blog for a while and wrote for the telegraph I think but he also wrote Captialism with a Human Face and Against The Flow, which is virtually free as its selling for one pence on Amazon, which is his journalism on things such as the basic income and stakeholder reforms of the Blair government, which no one understood or supported.

    He is an out and out capitalist, unlike myself, although I find a lot of common ground with him in that I dont think the old political landscape of pro and contra beveridge plan welfare statism is one worth keeping, there are socialists like GDH Cole who rejected the whole idea a very long time ago asking the vital question "is this socialism?" and answering, no its not, its not even an approximation of it (Hayek actually acknowledges this in The Constitution for Liberty suggesting, rightly, that socialism in that format was dead, suggested that socialism per se was dead even but that "empire building" by state departments and "project creep" were not).

    Cole's version of basic incomes was more like Georgism and heavily accented towards the idea of eventual complete socialisation of the economy or indirect socialisation of the economy by the state exercising a monopoly on rent collection and land ownership. I'm not actually precious about that, ownership is not what it once was as a political question.

  3. #193
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander
    As to motivating people, you can't. Flat out impossible.
    Sure you can. Many municipalities offer bonuses to contractors if they finish repairs on time. After the Northridge quake in Southern California, the freeway repairs were all completed on time because of the money offered.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander
    The public sector, which you wish to cut, contains many people on much lower wages than the private sector.
    This isn't true in the USA. The federal worker makes,on average, over $100,000 and get lavish benefits.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander
    She doesn't do it for the money either but for the feeling of having spent another day making the world a little bit better.
    The reason why I want to cut the public sector is because this is the non-productive sector. All the wealth comes from the private sector so if we can get more people working in the private sector, we'd get more wealth created and more wealth to spread around.
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.
    Likes LonestarCowgirl liked this post

  4. #194
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    Sure you can. Many municipalities offer bonuses to contractors if they finish repairs on time. After the Northridge quake in Southern California, the freeway repairs were all completed on time because of the money offered.
    I think this is why you argue so much. The repairs weren't on time because of the money offered. That's not the reality there, just the accountants view. It was completed in time because the contractors (the actual individual employees) wanted the money more than having an easy life or spending the time on something else.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    This isn't true in the USA. The federal worker makes,on average, over $100,000 and get lavish benefits.
    When you have a group of people obsessed with money, that's what you get.

    The whole concept with the bankers bonuses and a failing bank having to pay bonuses to retain the "talent" in the organisation versus the competition was based in this simplistic obsession.

    If you aim to grow as a person, you often have to give up childish desires. I think of wealth in similar terms. To just want as much as you can get is a child's response to sweets (candy).

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    The reason why I want to cut the public sector is because this is the non-productive sector. All the wealth comes from the private sector so if we can get more people working in the private sector, we'd get more wealth created and more wealth to spread around.
    Part of my job is supplying aids to disabled people. We don't charge for this service, it's part of the NHS. I don't see how anyone could make profit doing that kind of job unless the government paid a subcontractor to do it. They have tried that approach numerous times. In fact building a facility repairs have been subcontracted out by many councils in an effort to save the cost of having their own maintenance staff. The end result in many cases has been that after the initial honeymoon period that they spend more than the amount they saved going around patching up the jobs that aren't done well enough because the subcontractor is trying to cut costs to make more money.

    You see some jobs are jobs that should generate wealth and other jobs are not.

    This, I believe, is where you think charity should step in. Did you know that it's quite common for 50% of the money to go into admin fees and it can be as high as 80%? Hardly a paragon of efficiency but never mind because no matter how wasteful, you'll still feel like you gave ten dollars even if you only gave two to the eventual recipient.

    Lots of waste is caused by change also. The authority I work for outsourced it's IT support only to have to bring it back in house when they didn't receive the service they needed. To bring it back in house meant sorting IT staff and management structure. It would involve countless hours of meetings and faffing about. This is where lots of money is wasted. What's needed is better recruitment and stronger HR to try to ensure that firstly you have the right people in the right positions and secondly that they are free to do their jobs effectively within the organisation.

    If the public sector is inefficient then it's down to the empire builders and fools who come in with degrees who want to prove that their private sector darling idea is great.

    The public sector is a wasteful institution but it's not because it's inherently inefficient. It's because it's overseen by people who don't like change and who know deep down that if they ever had to compete with their coworkers on a level playing field that they'd be beaten. They share these traits with the senior management in many companies.

    A couple of stats for you in reference to HR. The classic interview, as a recruiting process, has been known to be flawed and inefficient for around 40 years yet it is used as the primary means of separating candidates in most organisations. A recruiter not trained to a high enough degree (so certainly most everyone outside of HR) have a proven tendency to recruit someone who appears to be like them. An SJ will typically hire another SJ, same with NTs and so forth. The familiar is comforting. None of these things lead to a cohesive team capable of dynamic change so you have to waste time in thousands of meetings to agree a direction which few think is the best idea and then have it implemented by people who don't support it to a workforce that's suspicious of it. For whatever reason the public sector is more prone to this waste than the private.

    In summary, moving the services to the private sector isn't a panacea. If you want the services provided but more efficient then don't be lazy and just change the appearance of the problem, get hip deep in it and make it more efficient.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?
    Likes Tellenbach liked this post

  5. #195
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    Sure you can. Many municipalities offer bonuses to contractors if they finish repairs on time. After the Northridge quake in Southern California, the freeway repairs were all completed on time because of the money offered.



    This isn't true in the USA. The federal worker makes,on average, over $100,000 and get lavish benefits.



    The reason why I want to cut the public sector is because this is the non-productive sector. All the wealth comes from the private sector so if we can get more people working in the private sector, we'd get more wealth created and more wealth to spread around.
    Since a lot of what you've posted there is propaganda, and its pretty clear you're very invested in it, I think that reason and persuasion are going to be insufficient to put a dent in it.

  6. #196
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    In summary, moving the services to the private sector isn't a panacea. If you want the services provided but more efficient then don't be lazy and just change the appearance of the problem, get hip deep in it and make it more efficient.
    I think those sorts of dichotomies are stupid, I really liked most of what Hayek had to say, both during the calculation debate and road to serfdom but I always felt there was a cowardice in failing to recognise that the private sector was subject to precisely the tendencies which he had highlighted as occuring in the public or state sector.

    There's actually a lot of recognition of this within capitalist writers now, they accept that there's market failures, sometimes quite serious, although the idea now is to say, so what? At least its not a state failing, some of them dont bother to argue that the state or public failings are worse even, just that they are different and the public makes a choice as to what sort of imperfection or failing they prefer, for cultural reasons. PJ O'Rourke's book Eat The Rich sort of reflects that mentality. It is perhaps political economy or pop economics rather than pure economics but I tend to think its one of those topics, like a favourite football team, which isnt ever entirely free of affective prejudices and bias anyway.

    Besides the public choice theories, or best of all possible worlds theories, ie democracy is the worst possible system until you consider all the others, there's the reverse class warriors or anti-socialists/anti-alternatives camp, who enjoy the whole label of "extremism" and I kind of think of them being like Dr Evil's Henchmen in Austin Powers anyway, also the whole "its not the system at fault its this year's managers, you dont blame a car for drunk driving", its all excuses. Some of them are clever and I think by now I've heard them all but they are excuses. I dont think that's very satisfactory.

  7. #197
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I think those sorts of dichotomies are stupid, I really liked most of what Hayek had to say, both during the calculation debate and road to serfdom but I always felt there was a cowardice in failing to recognise that the private sector was subject to precisely the tendencies which he had highlighted as occuring in the public or state sector.
    I don't think it's as much the business model which differs as the people who form the business. You get fewer ambitious people in the public sector and more lifers. It makes the culture if the business different and hence the strengths and weaknesses change.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  8. #198
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    I don't think it's as much the business model which differs as the people who form the business. You get fewer ambitious people in the public sector and more lifers. It makes the culture if the business different and hence the strengths and weaknesses change.
    I dont think its a mistake that the Dunning-Krueger (spelling) research has interested the US Navy the most.

  9. #199
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander
    The repairs weren't on time because of the money offered.
    Quote Originally Posted by Xander
    It was completed in time because the contractors (the actual individual employees) wanted the money more
    I don't see a difference here. If the bonuses were not offered, it's unlikely the repairs would've finished on time.

    We don't charge for this service, it's part of the NHS. I don't see how anyone could make profit doing that kind of job unless the government paid a subcontractor to do it.
    Why couldn't the disabled person pay for it? Why couldn't a charity do it instead?

    Did you know that it's quite common for 50% of the money to go into admin fees and it can be as high as 80%? Hardly a paragon of efficiency but never mind because no matter how wasteful, you'll still feel like you gave ten dollars even if you only gave two to the eventual recipient.
    Some charities like the Salvation Army only waste 20% of the money. The government wastes 50% on average.

    The public sector is a wasteful institution but it's not because it's inherently inefficient. It's because it's overseen by people who don't like change and who know deep down that if they ever had to compete with their coworkers on a level playing field that they'd be beaten. They share these traits with the senior management in many companies.
    Bureaucracies are wasteful because they can be. If corporations are wasteful, they lose money and eventually go out of business.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark
    Since a lot of what you've posted there is propaganda, and its pretty clear you're very invested in it, I think that reason and persuasion are going to be insufficient to put a dent in it.
    I'm very easily persuaded. Show me some facts and figures. Where are the socialist successes?
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  10. #200
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    I don't see a difference here. If the bonuses were not offered, it's unlikely the repairs would've finished on time.
    When you can see the difference then it may be possible to advance this conversation. Up until that point it may just be a dead end.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    Why couldn't the disabled person pay for it? Why couldn't a charity do it instead?
    Quite a few of our clients aren't able to work. Do you suggest this is just another cost to be taken by their family with no guarantee or assurance that they can afford it either? Perhaps they should get their rich uncle to get it or persuade a celebrity to do a free concert?

    The cost of these devices is significant and the maintenance isn't cheap either. It's just not feasible to do without public backing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    Bureaucracies are wasteful because they can be. If corporations are wasteful, they lose money and eventually go out of business.
    Then performance manage the public sector. Ensure that those in charge are responsible for their efficiencies and cannot cook the books to avoid the spotlight. Farming things out to the private sector just obfuscates the situation. There's no guarantee that a company in a small enough market isn't as wasteful as all hell. You may think that competition is universal but it isn't.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    I'm very easily persuaded. Show me some facts and figures. Where are the socialist successes?
    Ahahahahaaa...

    Oh... You were being serious. Well... I'm not sure what to say now.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

Similar Threads

  1. Slavery, child labor, organized religion and a free-market economy
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-22-2013, 11:21 PM
  2. Define capitalism, socialism, free market fundamentalism, communism, etc.
    By ygolo in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 05-14-2012, 06:34 PM
  3. Why your diet may not be working like you want...
    By sdalek in forum Health and Fitness
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-03-2007, 08:01 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO