Free Market and Big Government Work Well Together?

Luigi · 12-06-2007, 06:15 PM

One underlying theme the partisan political battle of idealogies waged daily is big government vs the free market. It seems people can only see one way or the other. I can't stand to see our government waste money as only they can. I also would not want socialist programs like medicare or education to be a on an individual basis, I don't want to live in Thunderdome.

Most of the criticism against government programs, like disability and social security, is that our government is notoriousely inefficient and wasteful. I wholeheartedly agree. Take a look at what I feel is the most important problem we face, the department of education, to see proof of this accusation.

I feel the government should limit itself to acting as mediator and auctioneer, for instance collecting taxes for free public schooling as they do now, but instead of actually running the schools in one giant waste of capitol, they let private institutions compete for contracts, and maybe lease the buildings to them we already have. Call it extreme vouchers, but I think the idea would work, it already has for a certain lucky few. Take the money being poured down the drain anyway and use it to fund private enterprise.

It seems like this is when government is at it's best. Look at the military, tax dollars fueling private enterprise, and some very successful and lucrative ones at that. Would our military be the machine that it is if the government decided they could do everything better themselves, or is dispensing capitol to the contractors the way to go?

The Apollo program is another great example, think of the unbelievable tools and everyday products that came out of that endevour, many of them fueling the economy for years. It was one giant socialist corporate welfare program, and it was beautiful. Government also has the ability to barter and haggle collectively for lower prices for the same service, such as when bargaining for lower prescription prices which would be cheaper than any private individual or institution could afford.

What do you guys think? Would you be more receptive to certain social programs if it was not the government running (While still paid for by taxes) the program or department?

Colin · 12-06-2007, 06:31 PM

A highly competitive, dynamic and free market can compliment an extensive welfare state, as it does in many developed states today. No single state has implemented a totally free market, degrees of intervention vary.

Further the world isn't black or white, and the nature of government intervention is flexible (for example there is a difference between a state owned enterprise and a state welfare program). Just because citizens receive benefits like health care and education via state programs, doesn't mean they can't invest, create businesses, purchase goods and services and compete with others in enterprise. The efficiencies and prosperity of capitalism can be complemented by government intervention which seeks to address inequalities, create more equal opportunity and address market failures.

Luigi · 12-06-2007, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colin

A highly competitive, dynamic and free market can compliment an extensive welfare state, as it does in many developed states today. No single state has implemented a totally free market, degrees of intervention vary.

Further the world isn't black or white, and the nature of government intervention is flexible (for example there is a difference between a state owned enterprise and a state welfare program). Just because citizens receive benefits like health care and education via state programs, doesn't mean they can't invest, create businesses, purchase goods and services and compete with others in enterprise. The efficiencies and prosperity of capitalism can be complemented by government intervention which seeks to address inequalities, create more equal opportunity and address market failures.

That's my point, but I think you missed what I was asking, maybe I can put it differently.

Would you be for the privatizing of many government programs, if they were still funded through tax dollars and the government didn't do much beyond bargaining, civic advocacy and rights enforcement, and distribution of tax dollars? Think specifically of my example of education. You don't think the government can trip over it's own two feet when it gets too in depth on a particualr idea? Aren't they at their best when merely acting as above?

Colin · 12-06-2007, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luigi

That's my point, but I think you missed what I was asking, maybe I can put it differently.

Would you be for the privatizing of many government programs, if they were still funded through tax dollars and the government didn't do much beyond bargaining, civic advocacy and rights enforcement, and distribution of tax dollars? Think specifically of my example of education. You don't think the government can trip over it's own two feet when it gets too in depth on a particualr idea? Aren't they at their best when merely acting as above?

It could work in some cases, for example utilities. Many countries have pursued semi-privatization, coupled with government regulation and funding to varying degrees of success.

Christopher · 12-06-2007, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luigi

That's my point, but I think you missed what I was asking, maybe I can put it differently.

Would you be for the privatizing of many government programs, if they were still funded through tax dollars and the government didn't do much beyond bargaining, civic advocacy and rights enforcement, and distribution of tax dollars? Think specifically of my example of education. You don't think the government can trip over it's own two feet when it gets too in depth on a particualr idea? Aren't they at their best when merely acting as above?

I would be for more privatizing, although I think it would require the government to do a better job of overseeing and managing the private companies to make sure they are not being "wasteful" either. I think that is the biggest hurdle for the government to overcome. Although, I have seen private companies that will act as an agent to the government in an oversight role and that seems to work well.

SWM · 12-06-2007, 09:48 PM

I think this is a concept that can work wonderfully for certain deptartments, like some of the ones Luigi and Colin offered, but should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Nearly any program of note is worthy of volumes upon volumes of discussion concerning where and how it should exist in the realm of government vs private sector. I'd like to think that the place and purpose of government regulation and oversight is something being perfected per case all over the world on a trial-and-error basis, but we of course have to have the awareness and intellectual honesty to measure and admit what is and is not working. I'm optimistic about this, as usual.

Zarathustra · 12-07-2007, 11:22 AM

Why shouldn't I be able to opt out of Social Security or Medicare? It's perfectly fair: I don't pay taxes to support them, I don't get their benefits. What's wrong with that?

Zarathustra · 12-07-2007, 11:23 AM

FDR himself intended Social Security to be voluntary, you know.

Luigi · 12-07-2007, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Why shouldn't I be able to opt out of Social Security or Medicare? It's perfectly fair: I don't pay taxes to support them, I don't get their benefits. What's wrong with that?

Nothing wrong with that, if you change your mind when your 30 you can get back in too and start from there.

Luigi · 12-07-2007, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

FDR himself intended Social Security to be voluntary, you know.

He also intended it to be a modest pension in the average person's final few years. When he started it, the benefit age was the same as today, 65. The difference was people lived to be about 67.5 at that time, so it was fiscally sound for all eternity and beyond. Problems are projected for the future because people live into their 80's and 90's. Why does no one ever suggest the obvious thing, and just raise the damn age? There has been studies done that no one ever talks about (Hell try it out yourself), depending on population estimates, range from a few years, to I believe 12 years.

Is this too much to ask of the Democrats? I guess the republicans too, because you guys want to destroy it completely, but the dems are the ones refusing to even talk about it, for fear of losing votes from a misinformed public. Social security was not meant to cover people for a fourth of their lives.