LogFAQs > #892799083

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, Database 2 ( 09.16.2017-02.21.2018 ), DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Y'know by cutting taxes you reduce services, right?
Zeus 12/24/17 2:45:17 PM #20:	anondum posted... the rich are looting the country, all these corps are going to put the money into buy backs and artificially inflate the market, explode the economy, and the rich will be right there to pick up the pieces. ...what? That's not even how buybacks work. anondum posted... Zeus posted... VeeVees posted... Noop_Noop posted... Good. Privatize that shit. Competition means higher affordability, availability, and quality. lmfao tbh, taking affordability off the table (since the government subsidizes some things to put them below the actual market cost, with people paying on and through the backend -- other non-subsidized things it's just plain more expensive on), the private market tends to offer greater availability and/or quality. Public education is a great example, given the low quality provided to students (and high overall price to taxpayers). However, when you have a monopoly (including when the government is the only provider), quality tends to go down since there's no competition. Case-in-point would be ISPs. depends on the industry. the reason single payer healthcare works is because the government can negotiate with providers better than anyone else. they can say "look, I need someone to provide hip replacements for the ENTIRE united states, and I want the best hip replacement for the lowest cost". no one else has that kind of buying power. Eh, there can certainly be benefits to monopolies when it comes to negotiating power. However, among other things, keep in mind that can be offset by a shrinking number of suppliers -- ie, if the government is only buying hip replacements from one place then eventually it becomes the only supplier and effectively has a monopoly of its own. Plus monopolies themselves are less concerned about operational inefficiencies because they're the only game in town, which allows inefficiencies to grow since those costs are just passed along to the consumers anyway -- either in the form of increased prices (or taxes) or lowered quality. And, just like forcing suppliers to do what you want, monopolies allow you to force customers to do what you want. You could triple your rates and their choices would be to pay up or go without. And keep in mind that when governments take over transit systems, one of the first things they usually do is increase rates. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash <cite>Zeus posted [p:892799083] in Y'know by ... [t:76131094]...</cite> <quote><cite>anondum posted...</cite> <quote>the rich are looting the country, all these corps are going to put the money into buy backs and artificially inflate the market, explode the economy, and the rich will be right there to pick up the pieces.</quote> ...what? That's not even how buybacks work. <cite>anondum posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>VeeVees posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Noop_Noop posted...</cite> <quote>Good. Privatize that shit. Competition means higher affordability, availability, and quality.</quote> lmfao</quote> tbh, taking affordability off the table (since the government subsidizes some things to put them below the actual market cost, with people paying on and through the backend -- other non-subsidized things it's just plain more expensive on), the private market tends to offer greater availability and/or quality. Public education is a great example, given the low quality provided to students (and high overall price to taxpayers). However, when you have a monopoly (including when the government is the only provider), quality tends to go down since there's no competition. Case-in-point would be ISPs.</quote> depends on the industry. the reason single payer healthcare works is because the government can negotiate with providers better than anyone else. they can say "look, I need someone to provide hip replacements for the ENTIRE united states, and I want the best hip replacement for the lowest cost". no one else has that kind of buying power.</quote> Eh, there can certainly be benefits to monopolies when it comes to negotiating power. However, among other things, keep in mind that can be offset by a shrinking number of suppliers -- ie, if the government is only buying hip replacements from one place then eventually it becomes the only supplier and effectively has a monopoly of its own. Plus monopolies themselves are less concerned about operational inefficiencies because they're the only game in town, which allows inefficiencies to grow since those costs are just passed along to the consumers anyway -- either in the form of increased prices (or taxes) or lowered quality. And, just like forcing suppliers to do what you want, monopolies allow you to force customers to do what you want. You could triple your rates and their choices would be to pay up or go without. And keep in mind that when governments take over transit systems, one of the first things they usually do is increase rates. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1