How did USA become such a messed up country?

[JinXy]

Well, there are businesses that cater to the rich all around us. There's nothing wrong with that. There are entrepreneurs who target the not-so-rich mass market too. Think of cars, handbags, even universities.

We have 'free' education everywhere, but look at the results. Look at how education/healthcare have become so expensive, especially the higher education. It sounds good and all to provide 'equitable' education and healthcare to all, but the economics behind it don't work.

When governments funnel money into a sector and regulate it heavily, it push prices up. Imagine, for example, without govt-backed student loans that US has today, where will tuition fees be? It will be wayyyy lower.

In the past, before government involvement, people can work summer jobs and pay for their colleges and graduate debt-free. In the past, there are more competition among doctors and sick, poor people are not turned away. Not anymore.

[makeo]

Love the U.S, but manifest destiny belief, and adherence to capitalistic principles over emotions are gonna **** it. :(

[Elldallan]

Well, there are businesses that cater to the rich all around us. There's nothing wrong with that. There are entrepreneurs who target the not-so-rich mass market too. Think of cars, handbags, even universities.

We have 'free' education everywhere, but look at the results. Look at how education/healthcare have become so expensive, especially the higher education. It sounds good and all to provide 'equitable' education and healthcare to all, but the economics behind it don't work.

Yes look at the results, look at nations like Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and many other European nations and look at how "expensive" it is *cough* there are no tuition fees, even at university level.

When governments funnel money into a sector and regulate it heavily, it push prices up. Imagine, for example, without govt-backed student loans that US has today, where will tuition fees be? It will be wayyyy lower.

In the past, before government involvement, people can work summer jobs and pay for their colleges and graduate debt-free. In the past, there are more competition among doctors and sick, poor people are not turned away. Not anymore.

So the US government has once again done things half-assed and because of that you write off the entire concept as failed and impossible...
In previously mentioned nations there are no tuition fees at all, the only money you need are what you need for rent, food, etc, and in some cases course literature. So yeah look at how expensive the system is.

They have higher total tax pressure but what do they get for it? Free education, Free healthcare, great infrastructure, cheap internet and in generally a better working system. In happiness surveys the nordic nations generally place at the very top of these surveys. In a 2010 Forbes census the Nordic countries took the top 4 spaces, the US came in somewhere around 15 or so.

Yes there are businesses that cater to the rich and some that caters to the less rich and so on, the problem is that this essentially creates a caste system, and when it comes to things such as handbags and cars that may be fine but in my opinion such a system has absolutely no place in education or healthcare, these things are supposed to be fair, equitable and equally available to all. Patients will either be turned away because they don't have the proper insurance or they lack the means to pay. Or they will be treated and then simply be given a debt so large that they have no way of ever paying it off, and will live the rest of their life in what essentially is indentured servitude.

Yes the US government is fond of paying corporations to do things for them rather than do it themselves, in some cases that works out and comes off cheaper for everybody involved, but in most cases it seems that the corporations find some way of either ripping off the government or the end customers, or both.
There is a reason that the government(local or national) usually controls things like the electrical grid, water and sewage lines, roads etc. I think that education and healthcare should be controlled in a similar manner.
Everything isn't black or white, Free-Market or Communism, hell I think both are equally unworkable and bound to fail.
For example look at one of the most famous brands of liquor, the Absolut brand(most famously Absolut Vodka), it was until a few years back run and operated by the V&S Group which is owned and operated by the Swedish government, so obviously governments can be capable of running successful and competitive businesses .

[JinXy]

Yes look at the results, look at nations like Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and many other European nations and look at how "expensive" it is *cough* there are no tuition fees, even at university level.


So the US government has once again done things half-assed and because of that you write off the entire concept as failed and impossible...
In previously mentioned nations there are no tuition fees at all, the only money you need are what you need for rent, food, etc, and in some cases course literature. So yeah look at how expensive the system is.

They have higher total tax pressure but what do they get for it? Free education, Free healthcare, great infrastructure, cheap internet and in generally a better working system. In happiness surveys the nordic nations generally place at the very top of these surveys. In a 2010 Forbes census the Nordic countries took the top 4 spaces, the US came in somewhere around 15 or so.

Yes there are businesses that cater to the rich and some that caters to the less rich and so on, the problem is that this essentially creates a caste system, and when it comes to things such as handbags and cars that may be fine but in my opinion such a system has absolutely no place in education or healthcare, these things are supposed to be fair, equitable and equally available to all. Patients will either be turned away because they don't have the proper insurance or they lack the means to pay. Or they will be treated and then simply be given a debt so large that they have no way of ever paying it off, and will live the rest of their life in what essentially is indentured servitude.

Yes the US government is fond of paying corporations to do things for them rather than do it themselves, in some cases that works out and comes off cheaper for everybody involved, but in most cases it seems that the corporations find some way of either ripping off the government or the end customers, or both.
There is a reason that the government(local or national) usually controls things like the electrical grid, water and sewage lines, roads etc. I think that education and healthcare should be controlled in a similar manner.
Everything isn't black or white, Free-Market or Communism, hell I think both are equally unworkable and bound to fail.
For example look at one of the most famous brands of liquor, the Absolut brand(most famously Absolut Vodka), it was until a few years back run and operated by the V&S Group which is owned and operated by the Swedish government, so obviously governments can be capable of running successful and competitive businesses .

Those nations that you mentioned can afford to subsidise education bcos they dont overspend on other things. That still doesnt answer the question that education costs keep rising. Sure it looks and feels good but society is paying more and more for it. I am saying that monopolies always become inefficient without competition. Are you saying that more private competition is bad? To be honest you havent said why competition from the private sector is bad,other than essentially saying that your gut feeling tells you that we should not have private competition in healthcare and education.

Regarding absolut,sure man the govt can run good businesses. You throw me a few billion dollars and i can create and show you a successful business or two also. But thats not the point. The question is whether this is efficient at all. It is a resounding no. A monopoly,whether run by govt or private sector, will become inefficient. Thats why you dont see private monopolies in our world. We only see government monopolies because they have the power to create advantageous regulations for themselves.

[JinXy]

I think you're missing my point too :) The problem that they wouldn't fail, in fact they'd probably be quite successful in doing what they do, making profits, and probably very good for however could bpay their fees. My objection is that I think they're bad for society as a whole because they concentrate quality treatment/education solely with those who can afford to pay for it.

In fact, if you allow for competition, this will not be a problem, since there are 'cheap' government schools that charge low prices. Again, i'm saying allow for competition. I'm not saying get rid of government involvement totally.

So if government is really so efficient in operating schools, they will be able to out-compete these private schools. :)

But they know they can't win. And hence, the regulations are put into place.

[Korp]

In fact, if you allow for competition, this will not be a problem, since there are 'cheap' government schools that charge low prices. Again, i'm saying allow for competition. I'm not saying get rid of government involvement totally.

So if government is really so efficient in operating schools, they will be able to out-compete these private schools. :)

But they know they can't win. And hence, the regulations are put into place.

Pretty naive approach there bro. The one that can funnel in most money in it will be the winner, ie private sector. They have a unfair advantages in that case. And then they will just be working for profit and not actually education the people. A whole goverment funded approach is better then money wont be a issue to become what you want the only obstacle would be yourself.

[Elldallan]

Those nations that you mentioned can afford to subsidise education bcos they dont overspend on other things. That still doesnt answer the question that education costs keep rising. Sure it looks and feels good but society is paying more and more for it. I am saying that monopolies always become inefficient without competition. Are you saying that more private competition is bad? To be honest you havent said why competition from the private sector is bad,other than essentially saying that your gut feeling tells you that we should not have private competition in healthcare and education.

Not so much a gut feeling as actual facts, for example compare the average school results of Finland with that of the US.
The chance that a student from the lower class graduates high school is much higher, the chance that students from the lower class goes on to study at university/college and get a degree is much higher. So yes there is actual proof that a system where everybody has equal access to education is inherently fairer and thus certainly better for society as a whole.

It is a pretty well proven fact that the best teachers aren't needed with the best student but with the students that have the biggest problems, but this will never be where the profit lies so in a capitalist system they will always suffer.
If you allow for private competition that will first happen by exclusive "elite" schools with very high tuition fees, because that's where the most profit lies, these schools will in turn attract the best teachers by way of higher pay and probably better teaching climate. That will deprive the general school system of the skills of those teachers which could most certainly be better use than teaching a few students of a selected elite.

In fact, if you allow for competition, this will not be a problem, since there are 'cheap' government schools that charge low prices. Again, i'm saying allow for competition. I'm not saying get rid of government involvement totally.

So if government is really so efficient in operating schools, they will be able to out-compete these private schools. :)

But they know they can't win. And hence, the regulations are put into place.

Of course they can't "win" individuals will always act for whats best for themselves, rarely if ever whats better for society, so of course they will succeed, there was never any doubt of that.
Give me an example where private schools systematically fight to put the best teachers and the best help with the students that most need it and not with the students with the richest parents, and where they do this for profit, not as a philanthropist cause.

Regarding absolut,sure man the govt can run good businesses. You throw me a few billion dollars and i can create and show you a successful business or two also. But thats not the point. The question is whether this is efficient at all. It is a resounding no. A monopoly,whether run by govt or private sector, will become inefficient. Thats why you dont see private monopolies in our world. We only see government monopolies because they have the power to create advantageous regulations for themselves.

Absolut is a globally successive brand, they hardly have a monopoly, sure in Sweden they probably had a pretty dominant market position(or even a monopoly) but definitely not globally, and yet they were wildly successful.

And actually we do see private monopolies, maybe not if you go by the definition of only a single market player but certainly by the definition of where a single player has a market warping dominance, Microsoft is one, Google is another, and to use the US as an example; there are places where ISP's locally have a monopoly or is one of very few competitors which essentially means the same thing since there will be no actual competition, this isn't limited to rural backyard communities in the middle of nowhere.
Just look at the US internet market as a whole, there is little actual competition, much price fixing and generally they provide worse service at a higher price than in places like say Sweden, which is because they can, they have geographically divided the market between themselves so that there will typically be one or two competitors that doesn't actually compete, they provide roughly the same crappy service at roughly the same exorbitant price.

And no a monopoly doesn't need to become inefficient, a private one will most certainly maximize profits by providing substandard service at an above premium price, and if the entrance costs to the market is high enough they can easily keep competitors out. From an economic standpoint that is very efficient

[JinXy]

Pretty naive approach there bro. The one that can funnel in most money in it will be the winner, ie private sector. They have a unfair advantages in that case. And then they will just be working for profit and not actually education the people. A whole goverment funded approach is better then money wont be a issue to become what you want the only obstacle would be yourself.

I didn't say get rid of government-funded (actually tax-payer-funded) approach. I said ALLOW for competition. Get rid of those regulations that prevent private companies from competing.

Trust me, if government-funded approach is way better and if the market really likes it, they will choose the govt over the private companies.

What's wrong with allowing competition?

"The one that can funnel in most money in it will be the winner". Do you mean they use the money to buy politicians to create favourable regulations for themselves?

[JinXy]

Not so much a gut feeling as actual facts, for example compare the average school results of Finland with that of the US.
The chance that a student from the lower class graduates high school is much higher, the chance that students from the lower class goes on to study at university/college and get a degree is much higher. So yes there is actual proof that a system where everybody has equal access to education is inherently fairer and thus certainly better for society as a whole.

It is a pretty well proven fact that the best teachers aren't needed with the best student but with the students that have the biggest problems, but this will never be where the profit lies so in a capitalist system they will always suffer.
If you allow for private competition that will first happen by exclusive "elite" schools with very high tuition fees, because that's where the most profit lies, these schools will in turn attract the best teachers by way of higher pay and probably better teaching climate. That will deprive the general school system of the skills of those teachers which could most certainly be better use than teaching a few students of a selected elite.

If what you said is really true, then all the top-class engineers will be working for facebook and google and there will be no hope for other companies to compete. The beauty with the free market is this: When there is a job which is high-paying, more people will study and train for it. Then you will have an increase in supply of teachers. This is competition. Wages of teachers in those 'elite' schools will fall. The best cure for high prices is high prices itself (and of course, no government interventions).

Of course they can't "win" individuals will always act for whats best for themselves, rarely if ever whats better for society, so of course they will succeed, there was never any doubt of that.
Give me an example where private schools systematically fight to put the best teachers and the best help with the students that most need it and not with the students with the richest parents, and where they do this for profit, not as a philanthropist cause.

Of course, people need to do this for profit. Nobody's gonna work for free. If you want to be a good, sustainable school, you will get the best teachers. Whether you chase after students with the richest parents depend on your business model.

Absolut is a globally successive brand, they hardly have a monopoly, sure in Sweden they probably had a pretty dominant market position(or even a monopoly) but definitely not globally, and yet they were wildly successful.

When I mention monopoly, I am not referring to Absolut. What i meant with the absolut example was: you can give me a couple of billion bucks (like how taxpayers give the govt), and I can create and show you a good company too.

And actually we do see private monopolies, maybe not if you go by the definition of only a single market player but certainly by the definition of where a single player has a market warping dominance, Microsoft is one, Google is another, and to use the US as an example; there are places where ISP's locally have a monopoly or is one of very few competitors which essentially means the same thing since there will be no actual competition, this isn't limited to rural backyard communities in the middle of nowhere.

Microsoft and google. Look at all the competition around them now. How about Chinese companies, which have access to 20% of the world population? I would not classify these companies as monopolies though.

Just look at the US internet market as a whole, there is little actual competition, much price fixing and generally they provide worse service at a higher price than in places like say Sweden, which is because they can, they have geographically divided the market between themselves so that there will typically be one or two competitors that doesn't actually compete, they provide roughly the same crappy service at roughly the same exorbitant price.

There is no monopoly unless you control most of the resources. If you look further into it, I am sure they controlled some politicians and they have regulations to create barriers of entry. John D.Rockefeller, who is worth $300 billion in today's money, wanted to monopolise the oil refinery market too. But he found out it's impossible. Facebook, google, I know they have some allies in the government.

And no a monopoly doesn't need to become inefficient, a private one will most certainly maximize profits by providing substandard service at an above premium price, and if the entrance costs to the market is high enough they can easily keep competitors out. From an economic standpoint that is very efficient

Yes, and why would there be high entrance costs to the market? Governement regulations!

[Korp]

I didn't say get rid of government-funded (actually tax-payer-funded) approach. I said ALLOW for competition. Get rid of those regulations that prevent private companies from competing.

Trust me, if government-funded approach is way better and if the market really likes it, they will choose the govt over the private companies.

What's wrong with allowing competition?


"The one that can funnel in most money in it will be the winner". Do you mean they use the money to buy politicians to create favourable regulations for themselves?

You go where you have the best chance of getting a good education, teachers, professors goes where they get the best deal. Ie, goverment cant compete against privatized schools in that area since they dont have the same flow of money to work with. Schools shouldnt be about competition it should be providing the best for the students not whats in the best interest of the company.

[JinXy]

You go where you have the best chance of getting a good education, teachers, professors goes where they get the best deal. Ie, goverment cant compete against privatized schools in that area since they dont have the same flow of money to work with. Schools shouldnt be about competition it should be providing the best for the students not whats in the best interest of the company.

To do things for the best interest of the company, you first have to do things for the best interest of your customers.

[Korp]

To do things for the best interest of the company, you first have to do things for the best interest of your customers.

So it would be free then? :P Cause that would be in the best interest of the "customer" that you have the ability to pick whatever you want to student and not depend on how deep your pockets are.

[JinXy]

So it would be free then? :P Cause that would be in the best interest of the "customer" that you have the ability to pick whatever you want to student and not depend on how deep your pockets are.

Nothing is free my friend.

[Elldallan]

If what you said is really true, then all the top-class engineers will be working for facebook and google and there will be no hope for other companies to compete. The beauty with the free market is this: When there is a job which is high-paying, more people will study and train for it. Then you will have an increase in supply of teachers. This is competition. Wages of teachers in those 'elite' schools will fall. The best cure for high prices is high prices itself (and of course, no government interventions).

The wages for those teachers might very well go down some, but the tuition fees will always remain high, well beyond the reach of the middle class and below, partly because it's a part of their business idea and partly because there will always be people who have enough money to throw away that they don't really care about the actual price.

Also they will always consider to draw the best teachers because it will always be less work for more pay, that will never change. And it will create a sort of caste system where only the rich has access to the best teachers, sure more teachers is good because then there will be more average and good teachers and less bad teachers. But that is not the issue here, it's that access to better education depends on how rich you are which is something I think is fundamentally wrong, education should be equally available to all which means that tuition fees shouldn't be allowed or their level should be mandated by government to a level where everybody can reasonably afford it. This is system that is juster and makes quality education more accessible to the general public which means that it's better for society as a whole albeit it might be worse for a select few individuals that is already drowning in wealth so that's hardly a problem.

Of course, people need to do this for profit. Nobody's gonna work for free. If you want to be a good, sustainable school, you will get the best teachers. Whether you chase after students with the richest parents depend on your business model.

This is exactly the problem as I see, neither education nor healthcare should be about profit, it should be about spreading knowledge and healing people. My issue with allowing profit into these sectors is as I've said before that it essentially creates a caste system where those with more money get access to better treatment and better education while those with little to no money are left with either substandard care/education or none at all.

If you get the best teachers and provide the best education then the rich will naturally migrate towards your school and then you'll raise the fees because the customers can afford it and will be willing to pay these fees, and thus you maximize profit.

When I mention monopoly, I am not referring to Absolut. What i meant with the absolut example was: you can give me a couple of billion bucks (like how taxpayers give the govt), and I can create and show you a good company too.

Well you said that government is irrevocably bad at business, I simply showed you an example where this clearly was not the case.

Microsoft and Google. Look at all the competition around them now. How about Chinese companies, which have access to 20% of the world population? I would not classify these companies as monopolies though.

Roughly 85% of desktop and laptop computers still run a variety of Microsoft windows so yes they are definitely a monopoly.
Google globally has roughly a 70% market share, the runner up is Baidu which is pretty much exclusive to china at 16%, the next on the list is Yahoo with a 6%, and then Bing, also with roughly 6% of the market. So yes Google is most definitely also a monopoly.

There is no monopoly unless you control most of the resources. If you look further into it, I am sure they controlled some politicians and they have regulations to create barriers of entry. John D.Rockefeller, who is worth $300 billion in today's money, wanted to monopolise the oil refinery market too. But he found out it's impossible. Facebook, Google, I know they have some allies in the government.

Wrong, you don't necessarily need to control the resources, it surely helps but you can also create a monopoly by controlling the outlet of those resources because if you do that then controlling the resource itself is irrelevant as they have no option but selling to you and because you're the sole customer or at the very least the major customer you can essentially dictate the prices.
Every business worth mentioning has allies in government because that's what you promote when you make bribes legal, the corporations simply buys the laws they want whether they're just or not, the DMCA is an excellent example of this.

Yes, and why would there be high entrance costs to the market? Governement regulations

No, there are high entrance cost because laying down fiber lines across the entire country to major hubs are incredibly expensive and time consuming, as is the case regarding most most infrastructure.
Government regulation has very little to do with the costs.
This is why I think it'd be better if the government laid down the fiber lines and rented access to any company at cost, thus if municipalities didn't like the major ISPs offer they could rent the fiber from the government and buy the equipment which would cost a fraction of the actual cost of laying down all the fiber they needed to reach their little municipality

Even if you in theory don't need to lay down fiber all the way the difference is minor, if you're a small competitor and forced to buy access from one of the big corporations they can at any time force you out of business by raising peering rates to ludicrous levels.

[Elldallan]

To do things for the best interest of the company, you first have to do things for the best interest of your customers.

Not really, you can settle for projecting the image that you're doing what's in the interest of your customers. This is especially true i markets where results takes a relatively long time to show, such as education for example. That is unless of course you separate teachers from grading and make the grade solely dependent on a standardized national test of course, but that has it's drawbacks as well.
Even if you provide bad education you can cover this up by making your teachers give students grades that they don't deserve. And on the surface it will look like all is fine until those students get into university, and then it will take several years do uncover that it's just not a random variation and that in fact that particular school provides grades that doesn't respond to reality.

And when that happens you have a whole lot of students who essentially spent years in education for nothing because what they got is worthless and now they have to spend several more years to recover what they lost. And because that school will no doubt be a shell corporation you will have no way of getting at the people responsible because they will just put the daughter company into bankruptcy and then move on.

I think education and healthcare is badly suited for the public sector because they are markets where the results only show after a relatively long time but there are easy ways for short term profit that you can hide long enough that you can make a huge profit and then cut and run before the results become evident. And the public sector inherently encourages short term profit over longterm viability because you can just cut and run and then start up anew somewhere else.