Government is not a problem-solver

The free market is a far more effective problem-solver than government. The main reason for this is the profit motive. Profit is a measure of how well a business satisfies its customers and keeps its costs low. Government, on the other hand, has no profit motive, thus cares not whether its "customers" are satisfied or whether it wastes money.

I know what you're thinking, you pro-big-government folk: If the politicians do a crummy job, we'll just vote them out and get some new blood in there! Well, you all have been saying that for thousands of years, and it STILL hasn't worked. No wonder, when you think about the process by which government rulers got there: mega-money-driven campaigns; negative attack advertising; clueless sheep-mentality voters who choose based on style and image; ridiculously low voter turnout. The whole thing is a farce and a sham.

The beauty of the free market is that we all "vote" every day with our dollars: you like a product, you buy it; you don't like it, you don't buy it. No business or non-profit can legally use coercion to make you purchase or donate anything. This is totally opposite of government, which forces you at gunpoint to "buy" their junk or "donate" to their stupid schemes. The free market is thus held to a MUCH higher standard.

Finally, government does NOT know best. Government employees are not super-human gods; they are mortal, imperfect humans just like the rest of us. Granted, free-market businessmen are human also, but only government can physically punish you for not conforming.

NonConformer said:

The free market is a far more effective problem-solver than government. The main reason for this is the profit motive. Profit is a measure of how well a business satisfies its customers and keeps its costs low. Government, on the other hand, has no profit motive, thus cares not whether its "customers" are satisfied or whether it wastes money.

I know what you're thinking, you pro-big-government folk: If the politicians do a crummy job, we'll just vote them out and get some new blood in there! Well, you all have been saying that for thousands of years, and it STILL hasn't worked. No wonder, when you think about the process by which government rulers got there: mega-money-driven campaigns; negative attack advertising; clueless sheep-mentality voters who choose based on style and image; ridiculously low voter turnout. The whole thing is a farce and a sham.

The beauty of the free market is that we all "vote" every day with our dollars: you like a product, you buy it; you don't like it, you don't buy it. No business or non-profit can legally use coercion to make you purchase or donate anything. This is totally opposite of government, which forces you at gunpoint to "buy" their junk or "donate" to their stupid schemes. The free market is thus held to a MUCH higher standard.

Finally, government does NOT know best. Government employees are not super-human gods; they are mortal, imperfect humans just like the rest of us. Granted, free-market businessmen are human also, but only government can physically punish you for not conforming.

Click to expand...

If there is no profit-motive in solving the problem it won't be solved and even if there is, there is no guarantee the "free market" will address it. We have a trillion superfund sites that remain uncleaned because of the free market's inability to solve problems.

There is no guarantee that ANYBODY will solve a problem, public or private or otherwise. But it comes down to coercion versus persuasion. The free market uses a positive incentive. Government uses a negative incentive.

As for pollution and superfund sites, you make a point. People should be free to manage their own affairs, provided that their actions do not violate human rights or property rights, and polluting is definitely a violation. And so I cede that government does have a role here.

NonConformer said:

The free market is a far more effective problem-solver than government. The main reason for this is the profit motive. Profit is a measure of how well a business satisfies its customers and keeps its costs low. Government, on the other hand, has no profit motive, thus cares not whether its "customers" are satisfied or whether it wastes money.

I know what you're thinking, you pro-big-government folk: If the politicians do a crummy job, we'll just vote them out and get some new blood in there! Well, you all have been saying that for thousands of years, and it STILL hasn't worked. No wonder, when you think about the process by which government rulers got there: mega-money-driven campaigns; negative attack advertising; clueless sheep-mentality voters who choose based on style and image; ridiculously low voter turnout. The whole thing is a farce and a sham.

The beauty of the free market is that we all "vote" every day with our dollars: you like a product, you buy it; you don't like it, you don't buy it. No business or non-profit can legally use coercion to make you purchase or donate anything. This is totally opposite of government, which forces you at gunpoint to "buy" their junk or "donate" to their stupid schemes. The free market is thus held to a MUCH higher standard.

Finally, government does NOT know best. Government employees are not super-human gods; they are mortal, imperfect humans just like the rest of us. Granted, free-market businessmen are human also, but only government can physically punish you for not conforming.

Click to expand...

Actually, I believe that only where the market cannot find optimal solutions, should the government be allowed to become active. That leaves economic public goods and external effects. Practically nothing else.

Sounds like NonConformer has conformed beautifully to the libertarian propaganda.

By the way, government can't exist without consent of the governed. It can't be done. So even when its customers grouse a lot, it's clear from the above that they are at least satisfied enough not to revolt.

The profit motive also means that building rural roads are out and there is no profit in not dumping waste into rivers or ditches. There are many things that government can do better than a private concern; the trick is to limit government to only those things.

Declan said:

If there is no profit-motive in solving the problem it won't be solved and even if there is, there is no guarantee the "free market" will address it. We have a trillion superfund sites that remain uncleaned because of the free market's inability to solve problems.

Click to expand...

There are (and herein you are absolutely right), things that he market id est the invisible hand cannot sort out in efficient fashion. Economists classify these goods as public goods. You can further add external effects to the government To Do List, but they can also usually be interpreted as public goods. Otherwise we start to talk ideological decision making, which practically excludes optimal welfare and leaves efficiency behind.

NonConformer said:

The free market is a far more effective problem-solver than government. The main reason for this is the profit motive. Profit is a measure of how well a business satisfies its customers and keeps its costs low. Government, on the other hand, has no profit motive, thus cares not whether its "customers" are satisfied or whether it wastes money.

I know what you're thinking, you pro-big-government folk: If the politicians do a crummy job, we'll just vote them out and get some new blood in there! Well, you all have been saying that for thousands of years, and it STILL hasn't worked. No wonder, when you think about the process by which government rulers got there: mega-money-driven campaigns; negative attack advertising; clueless sheep-mentality voters who choose based on style and image; ridiculously low voter turnout. The whole thing is a farce and a sham.

The beauty of the free market is that we all "vote" every day with our dollars: you like a product, you buy it; you don't like it, you don't buy it. No business or non-profit can legally use coercion to make you purchase or donate anything. This is totally opposite of government, which forces you at gunpoint to "buy" their junk or "donate" to their stupid schemes. The free market is thus held to a MUCH higher standard.

Finally, government does NOT know best. Government employees are not super-human gods; they are mortal, imperfect humans just like the rest of us. Granted, free-market businessmen are human also, but only government can physically punish you for not conforming.

Click to expand...

The roles of government that emerge from this are twofold

1) To provide services which do not directly profit a single company but rather are for the benefit of all (eg infrastructure, rule of law).
2) To solve the problems caused by blind pursuit of the profit motive (eg preventing wage slavery)

ttwtt78640 said:

The profit motive also means that building rural roads are out and there is no profit in not dumping waste into rivers or ditches. There are many things that government can do better than a private concern; the trick is to limit government to only those things.

Click to expand...

The question pops up: Do you really need rural roads, when none but government will pay?

iangb said:

The roles of government that emerge from this are twofold

1) To provide services which do not directly profit a single company but rather are for the benefit of all (eg infrastructure, rule of law).
2) To solve the problems caused by blind pursuit of the profit motive (eg preventing wage slavery)

Click to expand...

I believe the best summary of things governments should do is found in what economists call externalities and public goods. Beyond that government activity will tend to reduce the efficiency of the community.

joG said:

I believe the best summary of things governments should do is found in what economists call externalities and public goods. Beyond that government activity will tend to reduce the efficiency of the community.

Click to expand...

I tend towards Marx's argument on this - that while a community may become more efficient, the profit motive will also increasingly cause division within the community between rich and poor. I favour a less efficient community with a decent minimum standard of living to a highly-efficient community which prospers through exploitation of the underclass which will inevitably emerge.

iangb said:

I tend towards Marx's argument on this - that while a community may become more efficient, the profit motive will also increasingly cause division within the community between rich and poor. I favour a less efficient community with a decent minimum standard of living to a highly-efficient community which prospers through exploitation of the underclass which will inevitably emerge.

Click to expand...

But the two do not exclude each other necessarily, though, huge efficiency loss is encountered, when redistribution is poorly undertaken or overdone. Marx could not see this as he did not do formal models for mathematical analysis and largely left the classical methods aside. A pity really. He could have done good instead of so much harm, had he worked differently.

iangb said:

the profit motive will also increasingly cause division within the community between rich and poor. I favour a less efficient community with a decent minimum standard of living to a highly-efficient community which prospers through exploitation of the underclass which will inevitably emerge.

Click to expand...

Well first of all the profit motive does not cause division. As more and more businesses open, and profit increases, the demand for labor increases, which RAISES wages. Where is this "exploitation" of which you speak? I look around the U.S. and see millions upon MILLIONS of great jobs out there with GREAT salaries, available to anyone with brains and ambition.

Furthermore, "efficiency" is all about minimizing waste. Saying you favor less efficiency is basically saying you prefer waste.

joG said:

The question pops up: Do you really need rural roads, when none but government will pay?

Click to expand...

Yes, but one must remember that the government is ultimately we the people. Infrastructure for the "common good" is far better than some goofy "safety net" assistance for those that would otherwise be restricted from traveling to (and for) productive work.

ttwtt78640 said:

Yes, but one must remember that the government is ultimately we the people. Infrastructure for the "common good" is far better than some goofy "safety net" assistance for those that would otherwise be restricted from traveling to (and for) productive work.

Click to expand...

True. But it is not bad if the use of things is paid for by the user and not the Commonwealth.

joG said:

True. But it is not bad if the use of things is paid for by the user and not the Commonwealth.

Click to expand...

That is why we have those dreaded taxes. In order for things to be used they must first be built. Even if you walked, or rode a bicycle, to the store it is likely that folks used the roads to get those items, which you later bought, to the store.

ttwtt78640 said:

That is why we have those dreaded taxes. In order for things to be used they must first be built. Even if you walked, or rode a bicycle, to the store it is likely that folks used the roads to get those items, which you later bought, to the store.

Click to expand...

Where you are right is where the technology is insufficient to allocate price to use.

joG said:

Where you are right is where the technology is insufficient to allocate price to use.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the reply but I have no idea what you meant to say.

NonConformer said:

The free market is a far more effective problem-solver than government. The main reason for this is the profit motive. Profit is a measure of how well a business satisfies its customers and keeps its costs low. Government, on the other hand, has no profit motive, thus cares not whether its "customers" are satisfied or whether it wastes money.

I know what you're thinking, you pro-big-government folk: If the politicians do a crummy job, we'll just vote them out and get some new blood in there! Well, you all have been saying that for thousands of years, and it STILL hasn't worked. No wonder, when you think about the process by which government rulers got there: mega-money-driven campaigns; negative attack advertising; clueless sheep-mentality voters who choose based on style and image; ridiculously low voter turnout. The whole thing is a farce and a sham.

The beauty of the free market is that we all "vote" every day with our dollars: you like a product, you buy it; you don't like it, you don't buy it. No business or non-profit can legally use coercion to make you purchase or donate anything. This is totally opposite of government, which forces you at gunpoint to "buy" their junk or "donate" to their stupid schemes. The free market is thus held to a MUCH higher standard.

Finally, government does NOT know best. Government employees are not super-human gods; they are mortal, imperfect humans just like the rest of us. Granted, free-market businessmen are human also, but only government can physically punish you for not conforming.

Click to expand...

The free market is held to a higher standard? Laughable. Childish, even. But what do we expect from those who read Ayn Rand and think they understand how the world works?

The "free market" can and will kill you in the name of profit. It happens all the time. Do you think entities like the EPA and FDA spring up out of thin air? You think some sort of fascist dictator invents them to control people for the sake of control? No. These things come out of response to what that glorious "free market" does. Look at how long and how effectively the tobacco industry fought revelation that smoking was lethal. Look at incidents like the elixir sulfanilamide disaster, in which that free market resulted in a business that decided not to do any product safety testing whatsoever. They sold "medicine" whose solution contained ethylene glycol. The primary ingredient in antifreeze. The product was lethal. Not "you will be much more likely to get cancer" lethal, I mean the prescribed dosage exceeded LD50 for an adult human. More than a hundred people died. The free market can't punish you physically? Right.

Maybe you think lawsuits are sufficient to counter such things. Recall the movie Erin Brokovitch, where the title character helped successfully sue a company that contaminated local water supplies, causing illness. Based on a true story. Successfully proving environmental and health damage is notable enough that they made a movie about it. Or perhaps the famous Pinto Memo, where Ford literally did the math and decided it was more profitable to kill people than to fix the problem, even with lawsuits.

Radithor is a product containing water and radium. Literally irradiated drinking water sold as an energy drink like we'd sell Red Bull today. The results are about what you'd expect. It took nearly fifteen years to get the product off the shelves, and that only happened after somebody famous died of horrific radiation poisoning. (famous WSJ article titled "The Radium Water Worked Fine Until His Jaw Came Off)

Your mistake is failing to realize that the "invisible hand" isn't some benign force that pushes towards balance. Your wallet doesn't have anywhere near the voting power you think it does.

NonConformer said:

Well first of all the profit motive does not cause division. As more and more businesses open, and profit increases, the demand for labor increases, which RAISES wages. Where is this "exploitation" of which you speak? I look around the U.S. and see millions upon MILLIONS of great jobs out there with GREAT salaries, available to anyone with brains and ambition.

Furthermore, "efficiency" is all about minimizing waste. Saying you favor less efficiency is basically saying you prefer waste.

Click to expand...

You know what's efficient? Failing to install guard rails in your factory. Dumping industrial waste in the closest body of water. Skipping aircraft maintenance until you feel like doing it.

NonConformer said:

The free market is a far more effective problem-solver than government. The main reason for this is the profit motive. Profit is a measure of how well a business satisfies its customers and keeps its costs low. Government, on the other hand, has no profit motive, thus cares not whether its "customers" are satisfied or whether it wastes money.

I know what you're thinking, you pro-big-government folk: If the politicians do a crummy job, we'll just vote them out and get some new blood in there! Well, you all have been saying that for thousands of years, and it STILL hasn't worked. No wonder, when you think about the process by which government rulers got there: mega-money-driven campaigns; negative attack advertising; clueless sheep-mentality voters who choose based on style and image; ridiculously low voter turnout. The whole thing is a farce and a sham.

The beauty of the free market is that we all "vote" every day with our dollars: you like a product, you buy it; you don't like it, you don't buy it. No business or non-profit can legally use coercion to make you purchase or donate anything. This is totally opposite of government, which forces you at gunpoint to "buy" their junk or "donate" to their stupid schemes. The free market is thus held to a MUCH higher standard.

Finally, government does NOT know best. Government employees are not super-human gods; they are mortal, imperfect humans just like the rest of us. Granted, free-market businessmen are human also, but only government can physically punish you for not conforming.

Click to expand...

the free market is like government,it doesnt always solve problems.to work in harmon and for the best of the economy and the people.the free market needs to run the economy,and the govt needs to run things unpofitable or things that shouldnt be profited from,like for example roads,national parks,reulating water supply etc.


even further govt intentionally is as inneficient as possible.ever heard of the term beurocracies are self perpetuating? it means that govt agencies remain as inneficient as possible so they can always demand more people,more money,and justify their existence.id imagine if the dmv could do what it does efficiently, 2/3rds of its employees would be laid off for not being necessary.thisis generally ow any beurocracy runs,inneficient to guarantee their funds and existence.

Deuce said:

The "free market" can and will kill you in the name of profit.

Click to expand...

Actually it is not profitable to kill your customers.

But you're presuming that government agencies never make mistakes, that government always knows best, government is perfect, government has all the answers. The fact is that every day, another example of govt ineptitude and incompetence is in the news. How come you only point out errors made by people not in govt?

Now granted, should any business, or any person, for that matter, lie or deceive the public thru false claims or advertising, then I agree with you 100%. Dishonesty cannot, and will not, be tolerated. But hold on a minute - govt agencies lie and deceive the public all the time. If you're going to condemn dishonesty, then nobody, not even govt employees, get a free pass.

So the question comes down to: which type of entity, govt or private, gives you better odds?

As I've pointed out before: the free market is voluntary. A businessman's very livelihood depends on CONVINCING customers or donors that his/her product is of high quality.

Government is involuntary. Govt says: hand over your paycheck, and follow our orders, or we will punish you. There is no incentive at all to provide quality or actually solve problems.

The free market uses positive incentives. Govt uses negative incentives.

DifferentDrummr said:

Sounds like NonConformer has conformed beautifully to the libertarian propaganda.

By the way, government can't exist without consent of the governed. It can't be done. So even when its customers grouse a lot, it's clear from the above that they are at least satisfied enough not to revolt.

Click to expand...

In theory, yes. Threat force against oneself is no small matter. Threat of force against one's family members is HUGE.

joG said:

The question pops up: Do you really need rural roads, when none but government will pay?

Click to expand...

How well do you like to eat?

You eat a lot of good healthy foods that is shipped from rural places all over, and if we had only transportation routes that were profitable, we'd not have a lot of the benefits like good food that is out-of-season locally.

Just one example.

What I personally think is--100% free market is subject to certain failures. The better system could be the one that allows the market to function but intervenes in those rare circumstances in which it is necessary.