 SBR Top-Rated Sportsbooks |
Best Sportsbooks List
|
|
| |||||
| #1 FanDuel | SBR rating 4.8/5 | Review | #6 BetRivers | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review | #2 Caesars | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #7 Fanatics | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review |
| #3 DraftKings | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #8 Betway | SBR rating 3.8/5 | Review | ||
| #4 BetMGM | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #9 Borgata | SBR rating 3.5/5 | Review | ||
| #5 bet365 | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #10 ClutchBet | SBR rating 2.9/5 | Review | ||
So your example of why government always fails is three totalitarian regimes that ostensibly call themselves communist, two of which are still in existence with their current governments. What about current China that by all accounts is thriving and considers itself communist and has a planned economy?Originally Posted by Iced
http://mises.org/books/roads_web.pdf
It would be quite simple. Private companies have figured out how to deliver mail like the government too ya know. Private companies have not funded "the whole system itself" because the government has a monopoly on it.
They are pretty good at taking money. Try not paying your taxes or a traffic ticket or what have you. Suddenly, every government organization is working in seamless harmony to make your life a living hell until you pay up. Strange how that works.
Yes. It's maximum government vs. minimal government in the same geographic area.
Not really true. East Germany collapsed. China changed after Mao to more capitalism. North Korea is the same. All three countries were and are incredibly poor compared to their capitalist counterparts.two of which are still in existence with their current governments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reformWhat about current China that by all accounts is thriving and considers itself communist and has a planned economy?
Up until the late 1970s, China operated under a Maoist version of Communism/Socialism, and the country was incredibly poor. After Mao died and to this day, China has opened up to foreign investment and has instituted some capitalist market reforms. Post Mao-China has thrived as a result of this. Compared to free market Hong Kong (in China), China is still incredibly poor.
So in this scenario the poor would be unable to drive any distance because they would not be able to afford to travel upon roads that were paid for through a tolling system, that sounds like a great idea, sign me up. Or are you suggesting that government(oh that evil government) should subsidize travel for the poor so that they are not restricted to where they live.
Of course this whole scenario wouldn't impinge on people's freedom of movement or anything. Privileges and Immunities clause be damned.
And yet it manipulates its currency in an effort to keep wages low and thus exports higher than imports. There are fundamental reason that jobs are going to China and its not because of how economically free they are.
[COLOR=#000000 !important][/COLOR][COLOR=#000000 !important]Yes, I think I found one. The goverment is better keeping the jobs at home. At least I dont see the white house opening too many positions in China. My last 3 jobs were in private companies and all emigrated to Asia. Soon there will no private companies left in USA except the healthcare that is paid mainly by the "goverment" as the medicare and medicaid are the main health insurance in the country[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#000000 !important][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#000000 !important]Great quote, should be nominated.[/COLOR]
Other then doing things "better " that are actually negative ala propaganda etc.. No is your answer
The government does a better job with...
Law enforcement
Fire departments
Health Care
National defense
Public works
Utilities management
Public transportation
Fisheries management
Curbing pollution
Tracking potential weather disasters
Financing/running elections
Flight safety
Educating the non-rich
I could go on and on naming more things, but it doesn't matter. Even if one could QED prove that the public sector performs a function superior to the private sector (which can pretty much be done with everything on the above list) it wouldn't matter to libertarians and partisan Republicans. Not that partisan Democrats are any better in this regard, but they have their team and they root for them. Period. Showing a libertarian point by point facts about how public health care systems are more efficient than private ones is like someone from Boston going into NYC and telling everyone they should be Red Sox fans. The partisans have their faith in their political team, and facts won't sway them.
Flame away faithful libertarians.
Health Care thats a good one. Where are these so called point by point facts and who are they made up by? Nationalized health care is borderline socialism. No way in hell will I let the government tell me what dr. I can or cannot see. We already have free health care in the United States. Doubt me? Ask any of the countless million illegal Mexicans that have crossed the border to have their baby here and have not paid a cent.
There is not one single, solitary thing that the government runs more efficiently than the private sector.
However, if you ask any left-wing democrat, medical care (being as simple as it is to run properly) will be the first.
Good point. I do find moderate liberals, and even heavy liberals, are more open to new ideas, and can be persuaded to some degree when you disagree on an issue. This is how they became liberals in the first place.
And yet there are numerous things that the government needs to run, if you don't believe me head to Somalia, I hear its nice this time of year.
100% agreed as the private sector doesn't own a printing press.
While there will always be a need for a federal government, the fact remains they will never run anything as efficiently as the private sector for a whole host of reasons.
The government should run only what it needs to run and NOT overstep its bounds. Easier said than done.
Everything you mentioned on this list has no real private sector equivalent (save health care) which proves my point entirely. You purposefully omitted all the government run businesses that have private sector competition.Originally Posted by Ian
The government does a better job with...
Law enforcement
Fire departments
Health Care
National defense
Public works
Utilities management
Public transportation
Fisheries management
Curbing pollution
Tracking potential weather disasters
Financing/running elections
Flight safety
Educating the non-rich
As far as health care, all you have to do is look at medicare/medicaid. These behemoth programs will bankrupt this nation all by their lonesome unless drastic changes are made to curb spending on them.
Sometimes those on the other side make your case far better than you can yourself and Ian's response is a great example.
It is important to note that while the private sector probably can do things more efficiently, you can never really remove regulation of the industries that are entirely private. Otherwise you end up with what happened in California when they deregulated the power industry, Enron and the manipulated rolling blackouts.
Its also worth noting that many of the things that are handled by the public sector would not be as useful(while perhaps being more efferent) if they were run by the private sector, among these are things that we take for granted as public, such as firefighters and police. To argue otherwise would be to argue that only people of wealth deserve to be secure in their persons and property, if a poor person's house is burning down and they can't afford to pay for the private firefighting force, then they are screwed, if they are poor and still have possessions but can't afford the private police force, they are, again, screwed. Efficiency is not the be all end all of whether something works the best that it could or not.
The ultimate issue is that most people seem to think that most government functions have private sector counterparts, or could be run by the private sector, the reality is that most government functions even with the size and scope of government these days are not functions that the private sector could perform, and if they could perform them they would disproportionately hurt the poorest among us.
As far as medical care is concerned, the ultimate problem with medical care is that it has a free rider problem. We don't deny medical care to those in need in this country, but up until Obamacare we didn't require them to have medical insurance. Who do you think pays for the uninsured when they have required medical care that we don't refuse. You and I who have medical insurance, we pay through higher doctors bills and in turn higher premiums. The other problem with medical care is that at some point in everyone's life they will need it(even if its only right before they die), so there's a consumption problem, everyone is a consumer of medical care, and its not going to go away. While I'm not a fan of the individual mandate, put in this context, I can't see a real better solution to the free rider problem, unless we are going to start turning away people for hospitals, forcing everyone to have a certain level of coverage should make care cheaper for all.
The ultimate issue is that everyone wants stuff and no one in this country is willing to pay for it like other countries that don't have debt issues are. Germany, the UK, the Scandinavian countries, Canada, they all have pretty functioning systems(although they don't suffer the same immigration problems as the US, although Germany does/did have a Turkish immigration problem that's led to some backlash), the difference between them and us is the level at which they tax their citizenry at a much higher rate.
We can't have it both ways, either we cut the services if we want to cut the taxes, or we increase the taxes to match the services we want. We can't both cut the taxes and increase the services, that's what led to a majority of our debt that was accumulated during the Bush years, and its what continues to cause our debt to accumulate during the Obama years.
Last edited by Shaudius; 02-21-12 at 05:39 AM.
I'd rather mail a package through the Post Office than UPS or FedEx.
The U.S. Post office has always been cheaper, and faster.
Of course, I'm sure there are clones on this forum that's so pissed off at the Post Office that they'll say they rather use UPS and FedEx.
i can't believe it
there's a relatively intelligent discussion going on in this thread without a bunch of name calling
people in the u.s. are getting more open minded every day
look into $500 toilet seats to see how efficient the government is at running things.
while it is easier to mail a letter, and cheap and easy to use flat rate boxes, if you need delivery confirmation, the price is probably comparable, the mail is losing money and closing offices because of it.
I'd rather mail a package through the Post Office than UPS or FedEx.
The U.S. Post office has always been cheaper, and faster.
Of course, I'm sure there are clones on this forum that's so pissed off at the Post Office that they'll say they rather use UPS and FedEx.
If you think the "private" health care system in America was or currently is "working well" you are a moron. I'm not saying the government will run it any more efficient and fair (remains to be seen) but the "private" system was not working for the average guy.
The Postal Service is losin billions every year. FedEx and UPS make money. The Postal Service is in no way faster either.
I'd rather mail a package through the Post Office than UPS or FedEx.
The U.S. Post office has always been cheaper, and faster.
Of course, I'm sure there are clones on this forum that's so pissed off at the Post Office that they'll say they rather use UPS and FedEx.
I'm not sure how many of you have worked for the government before, but I spent a few years working for a company as a government contractor. The waste of money from the government was downright embarrassing.
Medicare is more efficient than private insurance. Less overhead.
Just like Germany is bankrupt, right?
I also forgot about how Germany and Japan's mandatory unionization have crippled their auto industries, leaving them completely uncompetitive.
This is precisely what Ian was talking about. I see this all the time. Libertarians make a bold, sweeping claim, get 100% refuted, and "rationalize" away their opponents' evidence with more sweeping, inaccurate generalizations about what "will" happen (in their opinion).
|
|
thats debatable. But i can still put a 45 cent stamp on a letter and send it across the country.
How much would a private company charge? We have no idea........yet
There are alot of US trade ports owned by Dubia also mike
very true
i am opposed to ANY foreign country controlling any part of this great nation especially the flow of goods into and out of the country
i can't think of a bigger security risk
|
This post was nominated 1
time
. To view the nominated thread please click here.
People who nominated: cant call it
|
Curious that material that the admins/mods sympathize with never seems to get salooned/moved to politics.
fed ex ships letters. its more than 45 cents.
protecting you from the private sector.
I've worked in the government.
Everything I wrote above is based on my personal first hand experiences working in the public sector.
The responsibilities of the job and the rules and regulations that go with it breed a sense of indifference and incompetence. When shit goes wrong, no one gets fired, no one gets demoted, no one loses their paycheck.
And actually I wasn't referring to the DMV and folks like "Lashanda." I was referring to college graduates who have undergraduate degrees/masters in public administration or parks/Rec or social work. Even the smartest most hardworking people are eventually beaten into robotic automatons when working for the gov't, because, you don't get ahead by being inventive. You get punished. No one wants to change things, because the rules are made by the people who don't do the work. It is not run like a free market business where product quality/performance matters. All that matters in gov't work is if you followed the established code of regulations and conduct. If you have, it doesn't matter how much you suck at your job, you won't get fired.
If all those people quit working tomorrow, America would take one huge great sigh of relief. And then the few people who worked in those departments who actually knew what they were doing would wake up the next day and start their own private company doing whatever it was the gov't was paying them to do. They would immediately hire some smart people they could trust/train and be making a profit within a month. There would be some profiteers to be sure, but there has, and will always be, more corruption in government than in the private sector. There is no one to answer to in the public sector, except the voters. And when the voters get pissed what happens? The gov't workers all bitch and complain.
If the gov't services we have were a private company, they would have gone under long ago.
Haters gonna hate
Reply With Quote
big0mar gave icancount2one 1 SBR Point(s) for this post.