|
I still want to know why it was bad that the Allies spent millions of dollars purifying, researching, and developing mass production of penicillin after private industry ignored it for a decade because the upfront costs were too high and sulfa drugs were cheap and profitable already.
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 13:10 |
|
|
Regarding the hubbub on the previous page, please check this out: The Rational Choices of Crack Addicts. Addiction is wildly, wildly misunderstood. Blaming the drugs themselves, and the people for the moral failure of using them, is incorrect. The real issue behind drug epidemics is the profound lack of opportunity to escape addiction, alongside the total failure of our mental health system to assist those who otherwise fall through the cracks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
Ormi posted:Regarding the hubbub on the previous page, please check this out: The Rational Choices of Crack Addicts. Addiction is wildly, wildly misunderstood. Blaming the drugs themselves, and the people for the moral failure of using them, is incorrect. The real issue behind drug epidemics is the profound lack of opportunity to escape addiction, alongside the total failure of our mental health system to assist those who otherwise fall through the cracks. There's some other mammal studies as well that indicate addiction is closely tied to stress levels and not to access to the drugs. Though it's an open question because of conflicting studies. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I still want to know why it was bad that the Allies spent millions of dollars purifying, researching, and developing mass production of penicillin after private industry ignored it for a decade because the upfront costs were too high and sulfa drugs were cheap and profitable already. Free market analysis is always hilariously bad
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
To continue my left-libertarian entryism of this thread: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEEzripANUQ
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
Ormi posted:To continue my left-libertarian entryism of this thread: So market socialism? I'm down
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:There's some other mammal studies as well that indicate addiction is closely tied to stress levels and not to access to the drugs. Though it's an open question because of conflicting studies. You can get addicted to basically anything that exists. Drugs are not the root cause of addiction and never were. Drugs and physical dependency really don't help of course but "criminalize drugs" is the worst way to deal with addiction. Especially when people with drug charges on their history end up being second class citizens.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:Yay, I get to tell one of my chemistry stories! I needed to buy a specific piece of laboratory glassware for a polymer purification I was doing, and it was very expensive on the normal suppliers' websites but all over the goddamned place for cheap on ebay and the like. I was curious as to why, and it turns out THC is (a) soluble in most alcohols and lipids (which should include olive oil), and (b) trivially easy to extract, to the point where a bunch of untrained stoners were doing it successfully. That's really cool, so you could combine trendy food things like coconut oil with THC and make a trillion dollars in places where that's legal
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
I've asked this of Nitrous a couple times, and haven't gotten a good answer. What information can an individual actor in a free market see that a government agent in the same position can't see? The Hayek argument rests heavily on this assertion, so it's important for us all to get a good handle on it. Like, let's compare a gas station manager for Shell with a hypothetical gas station manager for the Republic of Gastown. What factors are blinding the latter, but not the former? We can pick any other set of equivalent positions in the supply or management chains for the same question. QuarkJets posted:That's really cool, so you could combine trendy food things like coconut oil with THC and make a trillion dollars in places where that's legal I mean for all I know it might only be soluble in toxic long-chain alcohols or something. Detailed credible information is scarce and not something I want to look too deeply into, given my position and skills.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:Like, let's compare a gas station manager for Shell with a hypothetical gas station manager for the Republic of Gastown. What factors are blinding the latter, but not the former? We can pick any other set of equivalent positions in the supply or management chains for the same question. I think it's about monopolies somehow. Maybe?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
A central manager can access that information, but because they're not the person actually doing the work, the accuracy of the information is predicated on its accurate transmission from agent to principal. That transmission also carries costs with it that might further distort its accuracy, like travel time (not so important these days) and access limitations (sorting through and understanding it-- very much a bottleneck.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I think it's about monopolies somehow. Maybe? I think it's supposed to be that a centrally planned economy might produce too many guns and not enough butter, like we see in North Korea, but it's not analogous to a nationalized industry for a commodity owned by all citizens collectively.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
Ormi posted:A central manager can access that information, but because they're not the person actually doing the work, the accuracy of the information is predicated on its accurate transmission from agent to principal. That transmission also carries costs with it that might further distort its accuracy, like travel time (not so important these days) and access limitations (sorting through and understanding it-- very much a bottleneck.) I mean, sure? But like I said, let's try to compare equivalent positions. What makes that a problem for a regional manager in the government, but not for a regional VP for Shell?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:I mean, sure? But like I said, let's try to compare equivalent positions. What makes that a problem for a regional manager in the government, but not for a regional VP for Shell? It is indeed a problem for both of them. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
Ormi posted:It is indeed a problem for both of them. Pick a side Ormi, we're at war.  
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
Ormi posted:It is indeed a problem for both of them. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:I've asked this of Nitrous a couple times, and haven't gotten a good answer. What information can an individual actor in a free market see that a government agent in the same position can't see? The Hayek argument rests heavily on this assertion, so it's important for us all to get a good handle on it. Information is encoded about the supply chain, demand for the good, and competition through their affect on the prices charged along the way. Imagine, raw materials get rarer without a change in demand, this already gets encoded via a higher price that the raw material producer figured out back at step one in the supply chain. A port is out of commission due to a hurricane? Prices for shipping have risen due to fewer places to dock, or more effort needing to be put into shipment to get it to you via less ideal paths. While a market can have each step of the way put their little mark on the price along the way, a central planner will need to be proficient in all steps of the supply chain rather than being able to focus on proficiency in just their little part of it. And that's assuming they can actually get the information needed and that it is accurate. And that they can somehow quantify demand for a good without a price mechanism, which I've never heard of a method to accomplish this accurately.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
The market isn't perfect either. But like democracy it's the best system that humans have created.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:The market isn't perfect either. But like democracy it's the best system that humans have created. Counterargument: if we're not going to dismantle and decentralize large private firms, we might as well put the state in charge of them so they'll have some form of popular accountability.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Information is encoded about the supply chain, demand for the good, and competition through their affect on the prices charged along the way. Imagine, raw materials get rarer without a change in demand, this already gets encoded via a higher price that the raw material producer figured out back at step one in the supply chain. A port is out of commission due to a hurricane? Prices for shipping have risen due to fewer places to dock, or more effort needing to be put into shipment to get it to you via less ideal paths. Okay, but what about this is out of the reach of state actors? They'd still have people handling the same things a corporation does. Are you assuming a Mao-esque dictatorship or something?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
Ormi posted:Counterargument: if we're not going to dismantle and decentralize large private firms, we might as well put the state in charge of them so they'll have some form of popular accountability. Are you saying have the state in charge of competing firms and money and prices still exist? As in Coke-Cola and Pepsi both exist, both compete with eachother, but bureaucrats from the government sit on the board rather than stockholders?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Are you saying have the state in charge of competing firms and money and prices still exist? As in Coke-Cola and Pepsi both exist, both compete with eachother, but bureaucrats from the government sit on the board rather than stockholders? This sounds pretty great to me, honestly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Are you saying have the state in charge of competing firms and money and prices still exist? As in Coke-Cola and Pepsi both exist, both compete with eachother, but bureaucrats from the government sit on the board rather than stockholders? Sure, that's one possibility. What problems do you see with it over private corporate ownership?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
Ormi posted:Sure, that's one possibility. What problems do you see with it over private corporate ownership? Well, the examples I can think of generally don't seem to run terribly well. Amtrak, Conrail. USPS has been losing money every year for a while now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Well, the examples I can think of generally don't seem to run terribly well. Amtrak, Conrail. USPS has been losing money every year for a while now. Because republicans forced them to pay for pensions for the next fifty years worth of employees, the USPS is not insanely broken
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Well, the examples I can think of generally don't seem to run terribly well. Amtrak, Conrail. USPS has been losing money every year for a while now. There should be a rule in this thread that when people (especially Americans) want to posit that government-run corporations are so much more terrible than those in a free market (pbuh), they have to use examples that are not American. You can't point to organisations that have been specifically targeted for destruction for decades by half your government and say "see? They just don't work!  "Use examples from countries that aren't so insane and see where your argument takes you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
In no sane country would every aspect be run by democracy; instead it's used in specific, limited, designed contexts, as an important tool to achieve desired outcomes (for example governance serving the interest of the populace, and the avoidance of tyranny and violent revolution). Markets are similar. Nitrousoxide posted:USPS has been losing money every year for a while now.  Why would an agency providing a public service "make" money? The FBI costs money too, should we privatize them?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Well, the examples I can think of generally don't seem to run terribly well. Amtrak, Conrail. USPS has been losing money every year for a while now. On top of the pension system issues (which is the only significant reason USPS is losing money) this would still be a stupid loving example. The USPS provides an incredibly important service in that they deliver mail in a way that would be cost prohibitive if done by a private service. Fed ex isn't going to service butt gently caress nowhere unless they have the USPS to handle the final mile delivery for them. If USPS decided to eliminate that requirement and eliminate their ridiculous pension funding they could crush the everloving poo poo out of any private competing example.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Information is encoded about the supply chain, demand for the good, and competition through their affect on the prices charged along the way. Imagine, raw materials get rarer without a change in demand, this already gets encoded via a higher price that the raw material producer figured out back at step one in the supply chain. A port is out of commission due to a hurricane? Prices for shipping have risen due to fewer places to dock, or more effort needing to be put into shipment to get it to you via less ideal paths. So why is it that businesses do vertical integration?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:Okay, but what about this is out of the reach of state actors? They'd still have people handling the same things a corporation does. Are you assuming a Mao-esque dictatorship or something? I mean if we are talking no market vs market it's gotta be gov bureaucrats right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
Aren't we talking about nationalizing some industries, or reforming the market structure in the case of the pharmaceutical prize model?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:Because republicans forced them to pay for pensions for the next fifty years worth of employees, the USPS is not insanely broken I dunno man, sounds like something any state owned company could be subject to. Doc Hawkins posted:
I mean I'm not making any claims as to whether the USPS should be run as a state owned business. But it is, and is a counterexample to the idea of efficient and profitable state owned businesses. Caros posted:On top of the pension system issues (which is the only significant reason USPS is losing money) this would still be a stupid loving example. Hasn't USPS revenue been dropping pretty dramatically? It's not just expenses that are loving them. Stinky_Pete posted:So why is it that businesses do vertical integration? Dunno. Not every business does it. Maybe certain sectors of the economy are better suited to it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:
You're right, there's also the internet and a congressional moratorium on them following the example of some other countries postal systems by offering additional services to make up for revenue lost to email. Both of which would also wreck the poo poo out of them if they were privately owned.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
Another quality poo poo-n-run post by NitrousoxideNitrousoxide posted:I mean I'm not making any claims as to whether the USPS should be run as a state owned business. But it is, and is a counterexample to the idea of efficient and profitable state owned businesses. Nitrousoxide posted:Hasn't USPS revenue been dropping pretty dramatically? It's not just expenses that are loving them. Nitrousoxide posted:Dunno. Not every business does it. Maybe certain sectors of the economy are better suited to it. Nitrousoxide: I dunno. Maybe *long squeaky fart that suddenly (but not surprisingly) ends in wetness*
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
Caros posted:On top of the pension system issues (which is the only significant reason USPS is losing money) this would still be a stupid loving example. Postal workers work hard and, at least in the US, they have them working on Sundays now because, like every industry, it's all about squeezing more hours out of everyone for no commensurate increase in wages. Point being, they deserve those pensions. I say this as a guy who is still annoyed at how long it took to get a package that come via Canada Post last month.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I dunno man, sounds like something any state owned company could be subject to ...by people like you
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:Postal workers work hard and, at least in the US, they have them working on Sundays now because, like every industry, it's all about squeezing more hours out of everyone for no commensurate increase in wages. Point being, they deserve those pensions. I say this as a guy who is still annoyed at how long it took to get a package that come via Canada Post last month. No no, they totally deserve their pensions. The problem is that Congress has mandated that the USPS prepay the pension obligations for the next fifty (or it seventy five) years in advance. The US postal service is literally required to be squirming away money to pay for pension obligations not just of current workers, but for workers who may not even yet be born. It is the GOP's method of kneecapping them so they can point and say "See! Government services suck!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Well, the examples I can think of generally don't seem to run terribly well. Amtrak, Conrail. USPS has been losing money every year for a while now. The only difference is that private enterprises get investment and public enterprises get funding cuts. There is no argument to be made for the efficiency of oligopoly in lieu of nationalization. It's pure class warfare.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:Postal workers work hard and, at least in the US, they have them working on Sundays now because, like every industry, it's all about squeezing more hours out of everyone for no commensurate increase in wages. Point being, they deserve those pensions. I say this as a guy who is still annoyed at how long it took to get a package that come via Canada Post last month. They do but there's no reason they should have to be able to pay the next 50 years of them right now instead of as the bills come due.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 13:10 |
|
|
A privately-owned business can be intentionally sabotaged by management just as easily as a public one, and in fact this regularly happens in order to jack up profits in the short term. Whereas citizens & workers have no recourse to a greedy owner destroying a vital supplier of goods/services/jobs, in a democracy they do have the ability to get rid of incompetent or malicious legislators. Further, since public services are neither designed nor required to return a profit, they can be resilient to managerial malfeasance in a way that private business isn't. If anything, the example of USPS, versus e.g. Enron or Citigroup, should make one support nationalizing more industry rather than less.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 01:23
|
|
