Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
I am libertarian-ish, but generally don't like all the loud libertarian nuts (I register Dem and vote Dem because the things I care about aren't represented anywhere on the ballot anymore).
For me, it comes to a very simple economics truism: Governments are pretty damn inefficient and tend to waste a lot of money because of the process and bureaucracy. Markets on the other hand, tend to be really efficient at allocating capital when left alone. The times a government should step in is when the market has created a form of externality that breaks things. The old economics example is the people downstream from a chemical plant are paying the price for the plant's pollution.
From a libertarian lens:
Unfortunately the things I'd like to see from a libertarian don't actually show up.
Finance management major here, I'd argue that governments aren't inherently inefficient.
On a local level, government organisations are essentially the same as non-profits. The only difference is in who they are accountable to. Even KPI are pretty much the same.
The inefficiency of a government in contrast to the free market is in its inability to adjust to people's needs quickly on a global scale. Imagine a company that has to sell a little bit of everything and then some. What kind of resource does it need to have to fully satisfy the demand? It's practically impossible to make a vertically integrated system that would do this amount of research, let alone organize all the production and supply chains. It doesn't matter if it's a government or an entity. They all will drown in beurocracy, except the government is usually stricter as they tend to play it safe.
Hence, it's really a non-issue if a government takes control over parts of the market. And because they can't facilitate it all, they take over socially significant parts of it, like municipality governance, military, and healthcare.
Also, you (the person reading, not the person I'm responding to) should never be mistaken in thinking that the free market is perfectly efficient. It isn't. Creating points of inefficiency drives a lot of revenue. Think purposefully limiting demand to drive prices up. This is what's happening with insulin in the US, for example. If you have perfectly inelastic demands, you can make your product infinitely expensive.
Having worked a decade each in private and state positions in my experience they're just different brands of inefficiency. The big difference is that in private industry inefficiency doesn't really matter as long as you're making money. A business that starts in the right market at the right time can do everything wrong and still turn a profit for decades and no one will question their efficiency because they're profitable. If they're well established enough they can be relatively immune to competition because the market doesn't justify enough investment to create competition, so they dominate regardless their failings but still get celebrated as a successful business.
The state is judged by completely different metrics of success and no matter how successful, people will still ask if it could have been done more efficiently. In private industry success is the only measure of success.
I also don't think governments should be held to business efficiency standards. It's meant to be social, not profitable.
I responded already but a perfect example of government efficiency is Medicare, which is 16% cheaper than private Medicare replacement programs for the same services in the same population. And Medicare has better outcomes as well.
I wish you would take a look at how government works in places like Scandinavia and much of Western Europe. Their universal healthcare systems are very efficient and cost-effective.
Other than politics and gone-wild ideology, there's no reason the US couldn't do the same.
They already do. Medicare is 16% cheaper than private replacement programs, with better outcomes.
The biggest government program is socialized medicine, aka Medicare. The “market” aka private health insurance, costs on average 16% more than Medicare for the same services and population. Your view of government efficiency is tilted by decades of corporate media manipulation and is blatantly false.
First past the post doing first past the post things.
The reason for this is, imo, because they are a monopoly. They have no incentive to reduce costs.
This is actually more of a Georgist philosophy than libertarian, imo.
Cooperatives could potentially be a solution.
I agree.
In principle, it sounds great, but I personally feel there are some potential economic issues that could get in the way of UBI being a success. An alternative to UBI could be a negative income tax, specifically that which was proposed by Milton and Rose Friedman.