Mixed Economy

[Lafayette]

The "diversity of choice" you get under capitalism, 11 companies own nearly every product you buy at the grocery store.

Market competition need not be the ONLY means to assure that basic-necessities pricing should not get out of hand. What is necessary is to guaranty that basic-necessities (food, living-space) be supplied at the most fundamental level. Which is where crime-rates are the highest.

Whyzat? Because it is in the lower-classes that ignorance prevails, meaning that people do not obtain the level of education/training necessary to obtain a decent living-standard nowadays. Meaning somewhere above the "basic level" - that is, out of abject-poverty.

Which also means that we have known for a long time that some people do not attain the educational level necessary to exit from the most fundamental of work-levels. (Which is why our prisons are so full!)

Furthermore, since the advent of the Information Age, which has transformed most advanced countries out of the Manufacturing Age and into the Internet Age, Uncle Sam has simply not kept up with rhe rest of the world.

The challenge of most advanced countries today is to elevate the level of basic -at the first-levels of public-education, namely kindergarten, primary and secondary schooling. Tertiary level schooling should also be free, gratis and for nothing. Which is a lesson that Europe learned but Uncle Sam has not!

The challenge is that we are able to invent the internet but seemingly unable to employ it in a manner that assists fundamentally to educate our children free-gratis-and-for-nothing at the post secondary-schooling degree level! A post-secondary degree level education costs about $8200 per year in the US!

In Europe, that cost-level is either free (that is no-cost for citizens) or a modest fee less than 400€ ... !

PS: Yes, the cost for a non-EU student is much, much higher.
PPS: From the NCES here:
"For example, at public 4-year institutions, the average total cost of attendance was $24,900 for both students living on campus and students living off campus but not with family, compared with $14,600 for students living off campus with family."

 

[Lafayette]

BACK TO BASICS

“Wealth refers to the net worth of a household, i.e. all of its assets minus of all its liabilities, Stanley Fallaw explained. Household income is merely realized income to be reported on one's personal income tax return...

In reality, a millionaire's income is only 8.2% of their wealth, she found through her research.”

I read that Bill Gates is worth roughly $133 billion as of Jan. 13, 2021. I think that there’s an enormous difference between reinvesting money and spending it on yourself./QUOTE]

I'm sure Bill Gates and wifey are dabbling in highly visual matters in order to "do some good", and not for any practical reason. Had Bill been "really interested" in doing away with poverty, Bill&Co would have put his billions to work to do so. But, "they" didn't, did they?

Which is why some think that absolute riches should be done away with. They don't kill people like excessive speed does, which is why there is no Income Limit as there is for speeding. But, is the matter that simple? Methinks not.

Just what IS the True Purpose of an economy.?To generate billionaires? I kinda-sorta think, "no".

An economy's true purpose is the eventual "contentment" of the largest number of constituents. What does that mean?

Well, one helluva-lotta things. But, the meaning starts with the basics. Food on the table and a roof over the heads of the family or the individual. That is, the ability for most to earn a decently standard of living. Is that happening in the US. Well, for "most", yes that happens. The point being, "That outcome is not the condition of all Americans!" And it should be.

Yes, those are the basics and it's where we start in the gradient upwards in terms of personal/family income.

Let's not forget: There is nothing in the Constitution that suggest that growing millionaires/billionaires is the American nation's sine-qua-non economic destiny. Such a circumstance just "happens" because Congress never seriously thought that any limit to wealth was an economic necessity.

I, for one, suggest that we start thinking about that fact. Income Disparity in the US is amongst the world's worst - see here ... !

Meaning, quite simply, that we should - as a nation - start thinking about its Prime Objectives. And fairness at the bottom of the income-spectrum is only one such objective ...

 

[gulfman]

The economy is always bad for lazy people

 

[Lafayette]

I read that Bill Gates is worth roughly $133 billion as of Jan. 13, 2021. I think that there’s an enormous difference between reinvesting money and spending it on yourself.

I'm sure Bill Gates and wifey are dabbling in highly visual matters in order to "do some good", and not for any practical reason. Had Bill been "really interested" in doing away with poverty, Bill&Co would have put his billions to work to do so. But, "they" didn't, did they?

Which is why some think that absolute riches should be done away with. They don't kill people like excessive speed does, which is why there is no Income Limit as there is for speeding. But, is the matter that simple? Methinks not.

Just what IS the True Purpose of an economy.?To generate billionaires? I kinda-sorta think, "no".

An economy's true purpose is the eventual "contentment" of the largest number of constituents. What does that mean?

Well, one helluva-lotta things. But, the meaning starts with the basics. Food on the table and a roof over the heads of the family or the individual. That is, the ability for most to earn a decently standard of living. Is that happening in the US. Well, for "most", yes that happens. The point being, "That outcome is not the condition of all Americans!" And it should be.

Yes, those are the basics and it's where we start in the gradient upwards in terms of personal/family income.

Let's not forget: There is nothing in the Constitution that suggest that growing millionaires/billionaires is the American nation's sine-qua-non economic destiny. Such a circumstance just "happens" ... largely because Congress never seriously thought that any limit to wealth was an economic necessity.

I, for one, suggest that we start thinking about that fact. Income Disparity in the US is amongst the world's worst - see here ... !

Meaning, quite simply, that we should - as a nation - start thinking about its Prime Objectives. And fairness at the bottom of the income-spectrum is only one such objective ...

 

[Lafayette]

HEALTHCARE & EDUCATION

The slight problem I find with socialist thinking is that a free market isn't feudal. People are free to dollar vote and buy from cooperative businesses. Redistributive taxation seems to be working where it's tried compared to a collectivised communal sort of economy.

Living in Europe and after having seen its version of a Social Democracy, I'm convinced that it is as good as the US in terms of comparative incomes and better as regards social-assistance. By the latter I specifically mean both healthcare and post-secondary education. Lifespan in Europe is about 2.5 years longer than in the US due to the fact that Healthcare in the EU is largely free, gratis and for nothing. It is assumed totally by each EU-state.

NB: I would not generalize in the comparison of Europe with the US, since the differences in key areas are fundamental. These areas, imo, are Healthcare and Tertiary Education. I find both to be key attributes to a "valued" lifespan in any country. The EU has a generalized system the responsibility for both is governmental.

As regards Tertiary Education, the European Union graduates about 40% of its population whilst the US is at 30% - the 10% difference being due to the fact that tertiary education in the EU is mostly free whilst in the US some is state-oriented but much is fee-paid by the students/families* ...

*The US spends a bit less than half of its National Budget on "Defense" and very little on Education. See here:

 

[Lafayette]

SURPRISE! SURPRISE!

There is only one way to assure "fairness" or "equitability" in any economy - and it is by means of taxation. Which does not infer that we tax the rich to feed the poor!

It is evident from the above that there is no "common basic-value for below standard cost-of-living" across the US. Nonetheless, each state can know fairly well how much it costs basically to get by in most of its cities and towns. It can therefore have a very good idea of what is a decent Minimum Income that can be assured by the state (if funded also by the US government).

Which is a a big IF because such a national system of basic income assurance has never be tried. The US has a hodgepodge of state individual/family subsidy systems. Neither is such employed in Europe - though government subsidies there are far more progressive than in the US.

What's the tradeoff? Crime-levels, that's what. Whether a people want more crime or not (silly notion!), the rate of criminality is closely linked to personal/family income. Don't believe that?

Then try this list of countries descending in order (from highest to lowest) crime-rates. Surprise, surprise! High-paying economies demonstrate also higher crime rates ... !

 

[Mircea]

I tend to think a mixed economy with both generous welfare from government along with private market innovation seems to be pragmatic and viable. It captures more 'positive externalities' like education and healthcare than an exclusively private market and is more charitable.

Perhaps you've confused the three Property Theories -- Capitalism, Socialism and Communism -- with the three extant Economic Systems -- Free Market, Command and Traditional.

We are talking about two different things, you are talking about the microeconomics of healthcare and education costs when dealing with government involvement where I am talking about macro economic functions of a mixed model.

There are two parallel primary and secondary education systems in the US: Free Market Capitalist (private schools) and Command Socialist-Communist (public schools).

Public schools are Socialist in part because teacher unions function as an agent of Socialism controlling labor capital, and Communist in part because the schools and property are owned by the people, ie, the residents of a school district and during an election, 19 voters out of a voting age population of 160,000 people will show up to vote for school board members while the other 141,000 voting age residents stay home and don't vote and then have the unmitigated gall to whine and complain bitterly that the school district sucks.

Without a Command Communist public school system, few Americans would be educated.

Why?

Because there are 142 Million households, but unfortunately there aren't 142 Million tutors available to come to your home and educate your child.

Because the Demand for Tutors would far exceed the available Supply of Tutors, they would command hourly rates of $150-$750/hour to come to your home and educate your child. Can you afford $600/day?

You say, "Get a job, loser!"

A household with one adult as wager earner is already working. A household with 2 adults could have 2 wage earners.

Wait a minute....do you want the tutor having sex with your 7-year old son or daughter?

Probably not.

Naturally, you have $3,000-$5,000 cash lying around so you can pay a private investigator to vet the tutor to be of good moral character and not a common criminal, because you wouldn't have a clue as to how to do a background check and you'd fail miserably if you tried.

Of course, you could have the State vet tutors for you, but that would only reduce the available Supply of Tutors and drive their hourly rates up.

What if you have more than one child? And then you'd need a tutor for English, one for math, one for science and one for social studies.

And what about art and music? How many people would actually be qualified to teach all those disciplines? Very few.

How would you even know if they're qualified? You could have the State vet them, but that would only reduce the available Supply of Tutors even further and drive their hourly rates even higher.

So, what do we do?

An enterprising person might start working the phones because they realize there are families with children of the same age in their apartment building or on their street and neighboring streets.

Four or five families could pool resources to hire a tutor to teach their 4-8 children.

Anyone willing to do that is a hypocrite for opposing public schools, because that's exactly what public schools are: families in a community pooling financial resources to educate their children in a more efficient and cost-effective manner, with the added benefit of socializing children.

There is nothing inherently wrong with public schools, but there is something inherently wrong with people.

People don't read the views of school board candidates, don't vote to elect school board members and don't show up at school board meetings, because, you know, staying home to watch Dancing with the Stars or Celebrity Farting is far more important and beneficial to the community.

B-b-b-b-b-but the taxing is so unfair! Renters don't pay property tax and people who don't have children are forced to pay!

Renters do pay property tax. The property owner pays the tax and the cost of the tax is apportioned in the rent charged for the units.

When someone texting/sexting hits you head on, and you're bleeding to death in your SUV, you're probably gonna want someone to drag you out and transport you to a hospital to be treated, you know, so you don't die.

If there's only 5 people in your community whose parents could afford $2,400/day to educate them in English and Science in the hope that they might be a doctor, you're gonna die.

However, 0% of 5 randomly selected people have what it takes to be a doctor,

The good news is that because you didn't contribute to the public education system, your spouse will have enough money to give you a decent funeral.

 

[Mircea]

Examples, a nationalized healthcare system is a prime reason (as you might say) that costs are lower and people live longer but there are other controls in place to deal with equipment, standards, pharmaceuticals, what have you.

Only four countries have a national healthcare system: Britain, Sweden, Spain and Portugal.

All others have non-national universal healthcare systems of various types. Note that the US Supreme Court in its Sebelius decision said that a national healthcare system is unconstitutional, but a universal system need not be a national system.

Also, note that due to excessive costs, Sweden has been privatizing its healthcare system.

Determinations of care and how it is applied is left to politics, even though you and I might agree on the benefit of a nationalized system.

The problem in the US is that 99% of Americans have no understanding of how their system evolved and the role the federal and State governments, and the American Hospital Association played to create the nightmare Americans hate.

Not only that, but apparently Americans are too ignorant to understand the difference between a national healthcare system and a universal healthcare system.

In the US, any universal healthcare system would be heavily politicized and to "correct" apparent deficiencies, certain segments of society would be denied healthcare to ensure minorities got equal or better care.

How a given nation deals with higher education costs is another animal. The method of applying costs to everyone and keeping the tuition low for those who obtain that degree is the common result for nations over on the other side of the pond.

True.

Higher education spending is fixed. There's no such thing as "spend all you want and bill us later."

For a particular university, like the University of Bremen (Germany), the in-coming freshman class is fixed at let's say 4,000 students.

That's 4,000 students, not 4,001 or 4,050 or 4,800 or 6,000. 4,000 and not one student more.

It isn't like the US where colleges accept any warm body that applies (Harvard is a private school for those who don't get it).

US colleges would probably accept dead people if they could get student loans to pay tuition.

 

[Mircea]

The UK was the first to create a National Healthcare System in the early 1950s.

Naturally, I'm not shocked by the propaganda and disinformation.

Notwithstanding the fact the US Supreme Court in the Sebelius decision said a national healthcare system is unconstitutional, and notwithstanding the fact that a national healthcare system is a universal healthcare system but not all universal healthcare systems are national healthcare systems, the UK system is a poor model.

Let us review the 2014 CONCORD Study conducted by the British NHS, the British medical journal Lancet, and the US Centers for Disease Control (so sorry that you can't scream Koch Brothers as loud as you can on an internet forum).

Survival Rates for Cancers

Breast Cancer: UK 69.7% while US leads the World at 83.9%

If you're a woman and you don't give a damn if you live or die, then the British NHS is a good choice. If you want to live, you need to be in America.

Colorectal Men: UK 42.3% while US leads the World at 59.1%
Colorectal Women: 44.7% while US leads the World at 60.2%

One reason the US beats the snot out of the British NHS is because the US has superior screening and detection methods which are too costly for the British NHS.

Prostate: UK 51.1% while US leads the World at 91.9%

If I had prostate cancer I'd jump on the next plane to the US.

Only the US cannot see beyond an historical mistake.

The federal government, the State governments and a special interest group known as the American Hospital Association are solely responsible for the nightmarish healthcare system in the US.

The nightmare system can be fixed by imprisoning the leadership of the AHA, forcing the AHA to disband through criminal and civil actions, repealing those elements of the 1954 IRS Tax Code retained in the 1986 IRS Tax Code that prevent Americans from building generational wealth and profiting off of their health insurance, repealing the federal laws that gave employers control of health plan coverage, enacting a law to overturn a 7th Circuit decision not granted a writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court, having the States repeal the enabling laws that allow hospitals to operate as monopolies and monopolistic cartels that price gouge consumers, pursuing anti-trust actions against hospital monopolies and monopolistic cartels, banning the "out-of-network" practice instituted by the AHA, and by repealing all insurance mandates levied by State insurance commissions and regulators.

 

[Mircea]

And Europe has got that role right - meaning that its National Healthcare System is the prime reason Europeans live 4/5 years longer than Americans.

More propaganda and disinformation preying on the ignorance of readers.

There are three measures of Life Expectancy:

1) Life Expectancy from Birth
2) Life Expectancy from Age 35
3) Life Expectancy from Age 65

Life Expectancy from Age 35 is used almost exclusively when underwriting life insurance, auto insurance and worker's compensation insurance policies (and formerly by health insurance when it really was insurance and not fee-for-service as it is now thanks to State governments).

Life Expectancy from Age 65 was used by the Social Security Administration when first implementing Social Security. The early retirement age of 62 and the full-retirement age of 65 where chosen in part because 29 of of the 35 States that had social security programs before they were nationalized in 1935 used age 65 (the other six used age 70) and because the Life Expectancy at Age 65 for men and women was 12 and 14 years respectively and it was good policy for people to be able to enjoy a retirement.

Japan leads the world in Life Expectancy from Age 65 not because of their healthcare system or because they have better doctors rather it's because of genetics, culture, life-style and diet.

According to OECD 2018 data, German men live 18.0 years from age 65 while American men live 18.1 years. That has little to do with healthcare and everything to do with genetics, culture, life-style and diet.

Yet, German women live 21.7 years while American and Danish women live only 20.7 years from age 65.

Is Denmark's healthcare system terrible?

Danish men, like German men, live only 18.0 years to the 18.1 years by American men.

So....either you admit that the German and Danish healthcare systems are as terrible and horrible as the US system or you admit that genetics, culture, life-style and diet greatly impact life expectancy.

With respect to Life Expectancy from Birth, name the OECD countries that have a city like Baltimore, Chicago, Cincinnati, St Louis and others where Blacks indiscriminately slaughter Blacks.

2019 FBI Uniform Crime Report data says 6.2% of the population -- which is solely comprised of Black men (and not Black women) -- commit 55.9% of all murders in the US.

Identify those OECD countries that also have 6.2% of the population committing 55.9% of the murders.

That has nothing to do with healthcare.

Even if you put a Level III Trauma Center on every street corner in the US so you could drag dying Blacks out of the carnage to be treated immediately, you would still have a lower Life Expectancy from Birth because there's no possible way to save all of them no matter how long the trauma surgeons heroically work to save lives.

Identify the OECD countries that have an opiod epidemic where people on are dying of drug over-doses on a daily basis.

Oh, that's right....you can't.

If you invaded 40 countries and captured 450 Million people and brought them back to the US, armed them with Narcan and then stationed them on US streets about 3-4 houses apart where they would work 24/7 administering Narcan, you might save enough lives to increase the Life Expectancy from Birth.

So, let's dispense with the nonsense, shall we?

 

[Mircea]

The cost of a university degree in Europe varies from 1000€ euros a year to 3000-to-5000€. In the US, state post-secondary schooling tuition is an average $14K a year.

More propaganda and disinformation.

I, for one, would welcome the European system of tertiary education.

European universities are not open to the public. There are rigorous standards for admission.

So you refuse to explain to people how it works in Germany and Romania and Denmark and other Euro-States, I will.

You test in the 4th Grade. Score high enough and you go to the college track, but if not you go to the labor track.

You test again in the 6th Grade. Score high enough and you continue in the college track or are admitted to the college track. If not, you continue in the labor track or you are relegated to the labor track.

You test again in the 8th Grade with the same deal.

You test again in the 10th Grade with the following results:

1) Score high enough and you continue your education in a college preparatory school.
2) If you didn't score high enough, but scored high nonetheless, you enter the technical track.
3) If you didn't score high enough for the technical track, but were close, you go to the vocational track
4) Don't score high enough for the voco track and your educational career is officially ended and you are graduated at age 16. Have a nice career as a barista or fast-food, restaurant, retail or general laborer.

You test again in the 12th grade:

1) College Prep: Score high enough and you go to college for free. Don't score high enough and you are dropped to the tech or voco tracks depending on your score, or your educational career ends if you score too low.
2) Tech Track: Score high enough and you get bumped up and go to college for free and if not you got to tech school but if your scores are low you get relegated to the voco track or if too low and your educational career ends. No college for you.
3) Voco Track: You have to score high enough to stay in the voco track and you be bumped up to higher levels.

Tech school is 2-years for paralegals, executive/administrative/medical assistants, medical coding, medical technician, laboratory assistant, IT and programing, dental hygienist, autocad and drafting, and certain other technical skills.

Vocational school is for surveying, medical maintenance, aircraft power-plant and air-frame maintenance, and various trades.

If we were to implement that in the US, then:

1) Score 27 on the ACT or 2200 on the SAT and you go to college for free
2) Score 25-26 on the ACT or 2000-2199 on the SAT and you go to a 2-year college for free
3) Score 23-24 on the ACT or 1800-1999 on the SAT and you go to vocational school for free

Everyone else works at Wal-Mart or Starsucks.

You cannot buy your way into a university, either.

The government funds education and each university gets X-amount of Dollars and not one penny more. You, as university administrator, have to take that money and pay the costs of operation plus the costs of professors' salaries.

You cannot hire additional instructors just because you wanna. In the US, if there are 30 students but no professor, you just hire a street person (adjunct professor) and be done with it. You can't do that in Europe, because there's no money in the budget for it.

Everything is slotted, so to pay your way in you have to hope and pray that a student slotted to go for free chose not to go to college to create an opening for you.

You often have little choice, either. You'll be going to your local university whether you like it or not, unless you have a specialized course of study, in which case you'll have to attend university in another city whether you like it or not.

 

[Mircea]

However, though born in the US I have lived in Europe for a very considerable span of time. I can assure you that (at least the French) are taking to the bad-habits of Americans. The overweight problem has become "socialized" in France.

Why didn't you tell people that France's unfunded liabilities through 2045 are excess of 150% of GDP?

Why didn't you tell people that because France's unfunded liabilities through 2045 are in excess of 150% of GDP that France had to slash its pension program in the hope of possibly paying for pensions?

Why didn't you tell people that France slashed its pension from 50% to 37.5%?

Why didn't you tell people that France will likely have to slash its pensions further from 37.5% to 32.5% and possibly down to 28%?

Why didn't you tell people that France increased the retirement age to stave off pension disaster?

Why didn't you tell people that while Americans only have to work 35 years to get a full pension, the French now have to work 42 years, except those born after 1973 who must now work 43 years?

Why didn't you tell people that France will also have to cut healthcare spending and reduce services in order to fund it through 2045?

 

[MrWonka]

The slight problem I find with socialist thinking is that a free market isn't feudal. People are free to dollar vote and buy from cooperative businesses.

Tell that to all the so-called capitalists bitching about that Republican actress being fired from The Mandalorian.

 

[Lafayette]

Why didn't you tell people that France's unfunded liabilities through 2045 are excess of 150% of GDP?

Why didn't you tell people that because France's unfunded liabilities through 2045 are in excess of 150% of GDP that France had to slash its pension program in the hope of possibly paying for pensions?

Why didn't you tell people that France slashed its pension from 50% to 37.5%?

Why didn't you tell people that France will likely have to slash its pensions further from 37.5% to 32.5% and possibly down to 28%?

Why didn't you tell people that France increased the retirement age to stave off pension disaster?

Why didn't you tell people that while Americans only have to work 35 years to get a full pension, the French now have to work 42 years, except those born after 1973 who must now work 43 years?

Why didn't you tell people that France will also have to cut healthcare spending and reduce services in order to fund it through 2045?

Blah, blah, blah.

France is no a less a democracy for the what you've contributed above to the discussion.

You have yet to learn that a democracy is fundamentally in the nature of how representation to political power is accomplished. And not necessarily whatever that political-power should enact as legislation.

You are really barking up the wrong tree ... !

 

[Lafayette]

Why didn't you tell people that France's unfunded liabilities through 2045 are excess of 150% of GDP?

Because the point is irrelevant. Factually, country debt has no meaning in the EU. It is EU-debt that matters.

And if a center-right government wants to undertake more debt in order to assure that people not-working receive a stipend in order to by food and pay the rent, then why not? People are not starving in France - not by any means. The only real problem at present is not economic, but insufficient Covid-remedy inoculations due to a general supply-lack.

Given the Covid epidemic, remedy is EXACTLY what countries should be doing. And which Donald Dork failed to do in the US.

Still, the Covid fatality-rate in the US is only around 1.7%, less than half that of the UK as well a good many European countries.

So, just what are you moaning about? The GDP? Well, that is not really the most acute problem on earth nowadays ...

 

[Lafayette]

For example, at public 4-year institutions, the average total cost of attendance was $24,900 for both students living on campus and students living off campus but not with family, compared with $14,600 for students living off campus with family.

Note the above by referencing the average salary of an American family living below the Poverty Threshold that depends upon size of family. Namely, this below:

2021 POVERTY GUIDELINES FOR THE 48 CONTIGUOUS STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PERSONS IN FAMILY/HOUSEHOLD	POVERTY GUIDELINE
For families/households with more than 8 persons, add $4,540 for each additional person.
1	$12,880
2	$17,420
3	$21,960
4	$26,500
5	$31,040
6	$35,580
7	$40,120
8	$44,660

Let's presume that a "normal family" (that is, two kids) is living at its poverty-threshold in the US. That is, parents and two children that relates (above) to four individuals and a poverty-guideline of $26,500 annually - $2200 per month.

Four a notion of the living-costs for a family of four, see here: https://www.expatistan.com/cost-of-living/country/united-states. It is about double the amount of $2200 per month. ...

 

[Luther]

I tend to think a mixed economy with both generous welfare from government along with private market innovation seems to be pragmatic and viable. It captures more 'positive externalities' like education and healthcare than an exclusively private market and is more charitable. The slight problem I find with socialist thinking is that a free market isn't feudal. People are free to dollar vote and buy from cooperative businesses. Redistributive taxation seems to be working where it's tried compared to a collectivised communal sort of economy.

I tend to think a mixed economy with both generous welfare from government

Holy Guacamole!!!

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.

Alexander Fraser Tytler Quotes (Author of Essay on the principles of translation)

4 quotes from Alexander Fraser Tytler: 'A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most...

www.goodreads.com

 

[Michael McMahon]

Luther: “From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.”

I mentioned tax incidence in a previous post where taxes can sometimes increase the cost of living. Although I imagine the benefits of taxation to society will usually outweigh the slightly increased cost of goods and services. So I think many voters will naturally want generous spending from government while still being prudent about market efficiency. Voters will be wary of the risks of a recession or unemployment and so will hopefully fund good public services like education and incentivise market innovation.


“In order to fire accurately you must be able to judge distance and wind direction. How far are those trees? 300 yards? How’d you figure that? Three football fields; that’s right. You take what you know and you multiply.”
- Jamie Foxx, Jarhead sniper training scene

Governments often work with budgets of billions of dollars. Such large amounts of money are often nonintuitive compared to ordinary household budgets. So if 10 million dollars is overspent on a transport project, we can do as in the quote above and translate that raw amount into an opportunity cost of 3 lost primary schools. By comparing large amounts of money into items that we can relate to, we can be better able to look for good fiscal policies.

 

[Lafayette]

MARKET CONCENTRATIONS

The slight problem I find with socialist thinking is that a free market isn't feudal. People are free to dollar vote and buy from cooperative businesses. Redistributive taxation seems to be working where it's tried compared to a collectivised communal sort of economy.

Allow me to lighten your burden. Socialism exists nowhere in the world except perhaps North Korea. What Americans overlook in their nonsensical hatred of "socialism" is the fact that the doctrine calls for national ownership of all the means of production. In fact, in China, apparently the two exist - that is, some people become billionaires whilst running a company that they do not own at all. Because the state, in China, owns everything.

Europe moved on after WW2 when it decided to extend "ownership" of certain elements that provided key services to the country that were purchased by the government (and agglomerated) under a national umbrella. National Healthcare is just such a service and, as a government agency, it provides healthcare to the general public at (supposedly) very low lost. The government makes no profit whatsoever from healthcare services it provides in Europe. The provision of electricity to the population was another such entity, though it has since been privatized.

Free markets are only feudal when they are contracted from many participants to only a few. Services markets that are owned by not more than three/four private entities are just such a case. The concentration of markets is thus unfair and highly prejudicial to a select, small group. Markets that were once defined a sufficiently multiple corporate entities became over the years - slowly, slowly - owned by a select minority of enterprises. For which there was no effective competition between the companies participating.

Are all such markets unfair? Well, no. Some provide a highly profitable public-service to a large cross-section of the population. But pricing is not exaggerated and the services provided are both good and well-appreciated.

So, in terms of public-fairness, there are a number of markets that need not be "made public entities" in order to avoid price-gouging by a select few companies. BUT, over the recent past some market agglomerations have had profound deleterious affects upon customers regarding price-gouging of some services.

Such markets and how they are handled are often complex. If interested, this reading is well-worth the effort: The United States Has A Market Concentration Problem.

 

[Mircea]

Blah, blah, blah.

That wasn't a denial.

France is no a less a democracy for the what you've contributed above to the discussion.

Who said anything about democracy?

We're talking about Economics and Mixed economies and the fact that the Euro-States cannot afford to continue their generous pension and healthcare programs.

Britain is positioned best with a cost of 75% of GDP and Italy the worst at 300% of GDP. The other Euro-States fall in between.

Taxing every household and business at 100% still won't pay for it.

Mixed economies ultimately fail for the same reason Command economies fail.

 

[Lafayette]

We're talking about Economics and Mixed economies and the fact that the Euro-States cannot afford to continue their generous pension and healthcare programs.

European Countries all WANT two particular necessities provided by the state. The first is Healthcare and the second is Tertiary Education.

Economics be damned if these two offerings are not provided - or, even, provided insufficiently.

Which makes them light-years in advance of the US where neither healthcare nor post-secondary schooling are fully subsidized by the state.

Yes, yes, state-funded post-secondary education is indeed available. From the NCES here (note that this document is 8-years old!):

Financing Postsecondary Education in the United States
(Last Updated: May 2013)

In 2011, the federal government provided $146 billion in student financial aid in grants and loans. The total amount, in constant 2011 dollars, disbursed in grant aid increased almost fourfold, from $10 billion in 2000 to $38 billion in 2010. The total annual amount disbursed to students as loans (Direct and Federal Family Education Loans) increased 2 1/2 times—from $43 billion in 2000 to $109 billion in 2010.


Postsecondary education in the United States includes academic, career and technical, and continuing professional education programs after high school. American colleges and universities and technical and vocational institutions offer a diverse array of postsecondary education experiences. Participation in postsecondary education in the United States has expanded over the last decade, as has the total financing for this growing sector of the U.S. economy. Students are increasingly relying on loans as a funding source, affecting the balance sheets of current students, prior students, and those who loan money to them, including the federal government.

In 2000, some 45 percent of 18- and 19-year-olds and 32 percent of 20- to 24-year-olds were enrolled in postsecondary education (see Digest of Education Statistics 2012, table 7). By 2011, these numbers had increased to 50 percent of 18- and 19-year-olds and 40 percent of 20- to 24-year-olds. In addition, in 2011, some 15 percent of 25- to 29-year-olds and 8 percent of 30- to 34-year-olds were enrolled in school.

Even if the above numbers in blue are higher today by about 5% more only 20% of students are getting state-funded tertiary education. Will they be moving to Mexico to follow the manufacturing shops that have moved there from the US? No.

In Europe, post-secondary education is subsidized by country governments. Here-below is a graphic of the graduation rate is for major countries (note that the data is 10-years old):

You will find the US way-down on the list at around 38%. Why are European countries graduating more university students than, uh, the US?

Lemme guess. Because the annual cost in the US is between 4 and 5 times that of the EU ... ?


....

 

[Lafayette]

[QUOTE="Mircea, post: 1073503798, member: 32209]Who said anything about democracy?

We're talking about Economics and Mixed economies and the fact that the Euro-States cannot afford to continue their generous pension and healthcare programs.[/QUOTE]

In your trite little world, perhaps. But democracies are those countries that vote into place the governments that effect what is called socio-economic progress.

And that includes such perks as low-cost National Healthcare Services and Post-secondary Education.


[QUOTE="Mircea, post: 1073503798, member: 32209]Britain is positioned best with a cost of 75% of GDP and Italy the worst at 300% of GDP. The other Euro-States fall in between.

Taxing every household and business at 100% still won't pay for it.

Mixed economies ultimately fail for the same reason Command economies fail.[/QUOTE]

GDP is the least important measure of economic standing in a country. Far better is its National Debt.

And when one looks at national-debt the outstanding cost-figure is National Healthcare Services. But, quite wisely, NHS is the predominant national-service. Whyzzat. Because without it lifespan is considerably reduced.

Of course, people like you who think they are going to liver well forever don't care much about lifespan ...

Worth the read: Health Care Is An Essential Government Service

Excerpt:

There are many different issues concerning health care in America which should be addressed as this is currently a topic that has support on both sides of the political spectrum and affects many people. While it is argued and believed that a national health care system is a form of socialism, should be an individual’s responsibility not the government’s to provide health insurance, the government providing health insurance would decrease the quality and availability of health care, and would lead to a larger government debt. As there may be some truth to this, it should not prohibit the access for all people to have health insurance in America which would improve public health, reduce overall health care spending, help small businesses ...

 

[Mircea]

European Countries all WANT two particular necessities provided by the state. The first is Healthcare and the second is Tertiary Education.

There you go again.

Since you won't tell people the truth, I will.

Tertiary education is "free" in EU-States only if you are the "cream of the crop."

Free education is based entirely on test scores and if you don't score high enough, you don't get free education.

If we were to adopt the EU program, then:

1) Score 27 and higher on the ACT or 2200 on SAT and you get to go to a 4-year college for free, but you don't always get to choose where you go to college.

2) Score 23-25 on the ACT or 2000 to 2199 on the SAT and you get to go to a 2-year college for free.

3) Score 19-22 on the ACT or 1800-1999 on the SAT and you get to go to vocational school.

Everyone else works at Becker's Imbiß serving beer and bratwurst.

Also, another distortion by you and by the OECD.

In Europe, everyone graduates high school at age 16.

You get to continue your education if, and only if, you score high enough on the tests.

So, those kids that go to vocational school?

Yes, they graduate at age 18.

I mention that because the OECD considers that "tertiary education" while the US does not.

The point being the numbers are grossly inflated due to the way the US and EU-States define "tertiary education."

The metrics used by the US and EU-States are very different as the US Centers for Disease Control proves:



Source: US Centers for Disease Control

As the CDC admits, the way we define infant mortality is not the same way that many other States do.

Why don't we change our metrics? Some people have an agenda.

 

[Lafayette]

MENTAL ESCAPE ROUTE

The point being the numbers are grossly inflated due to the way the US and EU-States define "tertiary education."

Why don't we change our metrics? Some people have an agenda.

Grossly inflated, me arse! Tertiary Education is any and all education beyond Secondary-schooling. (Duhhhhhhhh!)

People like you are ignorant of the metrics and how they work. And you are not the only one. Denial is the Rabid-Right's sole mental-escape route.

If ignorance were bliss, the lot of you would be in heaven ...

 

[Lafayette]

Free education is based entirely on test scores and if you don't score high enough, you don't get free education.

What consummate ignorance.

Education is not something one deserves because they are "smart". It is the backbone of any viable nation. It the sole factor that guarantees a decent economy because that economy is constituted by capable, well-educated people ...