[besson3c]

I understand the Republican idea of wanting to minimize wasteful government programs and spending, but I think that these ideas often fall short in their reasoning...

Specifically, in addition to the costs of program x, one needs to consider the costs of *not* having program x, and the profits (both short term and long term, financial and non-financial, direct and indirect) that are possible with the program.

For instance, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are indeed expensive programs, but what would the costs be of *not* having these programs in place? If every candidate starting going to the ER for treatment, what is this net effect? If old people can't retire, what is this net effect on jobs, and on being able to afford health care and living expenses?

How about education? What are the costs of short-changing education? In the short-term this may help financially, but what about when these students graduate and they are unfit to compete in the global marketplace, hypothetically speaking? Studies have shown that a well-educated population has an indirect benefit of lowering crime, poverty, and strain on our health care system.

It has been asked why I would support a Democrat, and *this* is part of the reason why - I think many people in here simply aren't looking at the whole economic picture. It is intellectually lazy to come to a conclusion about a particular government program without considering this whole picture.

There are most certainly wasteful government programs, and in many cases certain investments offer no return on investment (RoI) at all, but I very rarely see any arguments in here that delve into these RoI issues. It's usually all about socialism/marxism/welfare/communism and the thought process just sort of stops there.

As the old saying goes, sometimes you have to spend money to make money.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I understand the Republican idea of wanting to minimize wasteful government programs and spending, but I think that these ideas often fall short in their reasoning...

Specifically, in addition to the costs of program x, one needs to consider the costs of *not* having program x, and the profits (both short term and long term, financial and non-financial, direct and indirect) that are possible with the program.

For instance, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are indeed expensive programs, but what would the costs be of *not* having these programs in place? If every candidate starting going to the ER for treatment, what is this net effect? If old people can't retire, what is this net effect on jobs, and on being able to afford health care and living expenses?

How about education? What are the costs of short-changing education? In the short-term this may help financially, but what about when these students graduate and they are unfit to compete in the global marketplace, hypothetically speaking? Studies have shown that a well-educated population has an indirect benefit of lowering crime, poverty, and strain on our health care system.

It has been asked why I would support a Democrat, and *this* is part of the reason why - I think many people in here simply aren't looking at the whole economic picture. It is intellectually lazy to come to a conclusion about a particular government program without considering this whole picture.

There are most certainly wasteful government programs, and in many cases certain investments offer no return on investment (RoI) at all, but I very rarely see any arguments in here that delve into these RoI issues. It's usually all about socialism/marxism/welfare/communism and the thought process just sort of stops there.

As the old saying goes, sometimes you have to spend money to make money.

But you see, none of those costs really matter to the wealthy and empowered. So why should government take any action to try to rectify historical inequities when those who are in power enjoy that inequality so?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It has been asked why I would support a Democrat, and *this* is part of the reason why - I think many people in here simply aren't looking at the whole economic picture. It is intellectually lazy to come to a conclusion about a particular government program without considering this whole picture.

And of course, some of us are living in the whole picture already and it doesn't work.

Standard leftie argument employed, I see: "You must be ignorant or intellectually lazy if you don't agree with me". Same old, same old.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

And of course, some of us are living in the whole picture already and it doesn't work.

Standard leftie argument employed, I see: "You must be ignorant or intellectually lazy if you don't agree with me". Same old, same old.

Huh? I'm not saying that anything works, I'm just saying that one can't come to accurate conclusions for or against without considering the whole picture - simple as that.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

But you see, none of those costs really matter to the wealthy and empowered. So why should government take any action to try to rectify historical inequities when those who are in power enjoy that inequality so?

I don't think that it even matters... A strain on our health care system, for instance, is going to affect everybody regardless of their income. The only real difference is that the wealthy will be able to suck it up far easier, but no doubt they would prefer lower costs. We are all connected in some way.

[tie]

Originally Posted by besson3c

A strain on our health care system, for instance, is going to affect everybody regardless of their income.

Why? If you have good health care, then it doesn't matter. America is the best place in the world for people with good health coverage.

I don't think your arguments make much sense. I hate to judge, but it really sounds like you are in the lower middle class, i.e., make less than $5 million a year.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by tie 

Why? If you have good health care, then it doesn't matter. America is the best place in the world for people with good health coverage.

What percentage of Americans have health care with absolutely no deductible/co-pay that doesn't cost an arm and a leg?

I don't think your arguments make much sense. I hate to judge, but it really sounds like you are in the lower middle class, i.e., make less than $5 million a year.

You're right... Last year I only made $4.9 million

[tie]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What percentage of Americans have health care with absolutely no deductible/co-pay that doesn't cost an arm and a leg?

Who cares? The Republican policies are aimed at the wealthy. When you do graduate to McCain's $5 million level, then I think you'll start to understand. (To be fair to McCain, he does seem to have no concept of numbers in general. He also said that the CEOs of Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae were making hundreds of billions of dollars a year. So maybe this $5 million thing was one of those statements. Some wealthy people turn into Republicans and others can't even remember how many houses they own.)

And the Republicans aren't crazy. I've worked in Canada and the US, for example, and in my own experience the US system is much better if you have health care coverage.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

And of course, some of us are living in the whole picture already and it doesn't work.

Standard leftie argument employed, I see: "You must be ignorant or intellectually lazy if you don't agree with me". Same old, same old.

And you've given your standard, "I don't have to actually engage an idea when I can just dismiss it at elitist."

[besson3c]

I don't know if any Canadians that would dispute the high quality of US health insurance...

I don't necessarily agree that the Republicans are all about catering to the wealthy, because there are those that are strongly against welfare abuses (or even welfare in general, possibly), redistribution of wealth, etc. that aren't wealthy. To those people I say that their better argument might be to close up loopholes and prevent these sorts of abuses of our safety net rather than to do away with it altogether, and my reasons for saying this don't necessarily involve a philosophical difference, but in addressing strains on our institutions as I've described here. However, even in saying this there are important caveats that this doesn't necessarily apply across the board either as some sort of generalization.

Again, my point is that we need to look at the entire picture, case by case, and possibly leave some of our philosophical ideas aside in coming up with the best designed system that works out best for the greatest percentage of Americans, economically. Sometimes life ain't fair for the rich or the poor.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

And you've given your standard, "I don't have to actually engage an idea when I can just dismiss it at elitist."

Actually, it was more like a "I don't have to actually engage an idea because I've already seen the results of that idea".

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Actually, it was more like a "I don't have to actually engage an idea because I've already seen the results of that idea".

My point is that you use this "liberals always think they're smarter than you" argument in situations where it hardly even makes sense. If things are going round and around in circles, then you're equally to blame. Perhaps you've forgotten who's chasing whose tail.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

My point is that you use this "liberals always think they're smarter than you" argument in situations where it hardly even makes sense.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It has been asked why I would support a Democrat, and *this* is part of the reason why - I think many people in here simply aren't looking at the whole economic picture. It is intellectually lazy to come to a conclusion about a particular government program without considering this whole picture.

Translated:

If you're not considering the Democrat side of this argument, then you must be intellectually lazy.

Nowhere does the OP give the option of "tried that, failed".

And you yourself stated:

And you've given your standard, "I don't have to actually engage an idea when I can just dismiss it at elitist."

And likewise, nowhere do you give the option of "tried that, failed". You automatically assume that my position is derived at from an elitist attitude, rather than experience of the actual idea not working in real life.

So yes, my original claim stands. And your posts reinforce it.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Translated:



Nowhere does the OP give the option of "tried that, failed".

And you yourself stated:



And likewise, nowhere do you give the option of "tried that, failed". You automatically assume that my position is derived at from an elitist attitude, rather than experience of the actual idea not working in real life.

So yes, my original claim stands. And your posts reinforce it.

Just saying that you aren't actually talking about the post. In fact, I've forgotten what it was about now you've been engaged in this very common tactic for so long.

That's it. All I'm saying. See ya in the evolution thread that also has nothing to do with the OP.

[Dual Porpoise]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I understand the Republican idea of wanting to minimize wasteful government programs and spending, ...
For instance, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are indeed expensive programs.

I'm not sure I understand you - are you saying that these three programs are wasteful? They seem extremely efficient to me (at least in terms of percentage of administrative costs), especially when compared to private sector programs. For sure they are expensive, but that is different to wasteful.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Just saying that you aren't actually talking about the post.

Actually, I am.

See:

Originally Posted by Doofy

And of course, some of us are living in the whole picture already and it doesn't work.

?

That was a direct reference to the OP. Of course, you deviated the whole argument by addressing the other part of the post. And then tried to pin a derail on me. Good show, proud of you.

Originally Posted by Helmling 

In fact, I've forgotten what it was about now

Yeah, you see that little blue blob thingy to the right of your browser window? Just click on it with your mouse and drag it to the top, as far as it'll go.

Originally Posted by Helmling 

you've been engaged in this very common tactic for so long. That's it. All I'm saying. See ya in the evolution thread that also has nothing to do with the OP.

Oh, I see. Making out that I always deviate from the OP. Well, the Matt Damon thread had already turned to evolution before I entered the discussion. Gonna try to pin that one on me too, are you?

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Actually, I am.

See:

?

That was a direct reference to the OP. Of course, you deviated the whole argument by addressing the other part of the post. And then tried to pin a derail on me. Good show, proud of you.



Yeah, you see that little blue blob thingy to the right of your browser window? Just click on it with your mouse and drag it to the top, as far as it'll go.



Oh, I see. Making out that I always deviate from the OP. Well, the Matt Damon thread had already turned to evolution before I entered the discussion. Gonna try to pin that one on me too, are you?

Nah, I just thought the irony was worth pointing out. More directed at me than you.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

one needs to consider the costs of *not* having program x

Really?

You're familiar with Occam's Razor, correct?

Which possibility accounts for all data and can be arrived at with the least amount of effort?

1) Almost half the population of the United States has failed to pick up on your blisteringly obvious point.

2) One single person (i.e. you) has no idea how other people think.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It is intellectually lazy to come to a conclusion about a particular government program without considering this whole picture.

I know it's cliche, but you need to seek to understand instead of seeking to be understood a little more before you give a lecture about intellectual laziness.

The fact your opponents here can make this difficult is no excuse for a failure to do so.

[Dual Porpoise]

I don't think you understand Occam's Razor correctly.

[subego]

Go on... I'm listening.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dual Porpoise 

I'm not sure I understand you - are you saying that these three programs are wasteful? They seem extremely efficient to me (at least in terms of percentage of administrative costs), especially when compared to private sector programs. For sure they are expensive, but that is different to wasteful.

Good point... I don't know if they are wasteful or not. I'm sure they can be improved, there is always room for improvement, but your point is taken about how expensive is not necessarily equal to wasteful.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

Really?

You're familiar with Occam's Razor, correct?

Which possibility accounts for all data and can be arrived at with the least amount of effort?

1) Almost half the population of the United States has failed to pick up on your blisteringly obvious point.

2) One single person (i.e. you) has no idea how other people think.






I know it's cliche, but you need to seek to understand instead of seeking to be understood a little more before you give a lecture about intellectual laziness.

The fact your opponents here can make this difficult is no excuse for a failure to do so.

I'm willing to concede that using term "intellectually lazy" was probably not smart, nor was bringing up my perceived Republican tendency, as these create big distractions, but I'd really rather talk about my ideas rather than these two things if you don't mind...

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm willing to concede that using term "intellectually lazy" was probably not smart, nor was bringing up my perceived Republican tendency, as these create big distractions, but I'd really rather talk about my ideas rather than these two things if you don't mind...

Mind? That's exactly what I want to do.

I thought it would be better to address the hostile tone up front rather than let it go and just respond in kind.

Gimme a sec, dog has to poop. I'll PM you a photo.

[besson3c]

Have you ever thought about wiping your dog's ass with some TP, subego? Aren't you worried about your dog putting his butt on your nice furniture?

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Have you ever thought about wiping your dog's ass with some TP, subego? Aren't you worried about your dog putting his butt on your nice furniture?

Dogs don't have butt cheeks, so it's not much of an issue. Dingleage can be a problem, but not if things are trimmed up.

Dragging the ass is usually because a gland back there is overfilled and itchy.

[besson3c]

An overfilled ass gland and wasteful government programs have a lot in common, I hear!

[besson3c]

Another thing: who says that Republican administrations are so much better with money? The numbers don't lie, in terms of our debt and budget balancing we did quite well under Clinton. I don't mean to be partisan here, but it is far from a given that you can only have sound fiscal policy and budgeting under a Republican administration.

[Chongo]

Who was in charge of congress when those balanced budgets were passed?

Speaking of Fannie Mae, seems the Clinton Assistant AG that gave us the "Gorelick Wall" between the intelligence agencies, was appointed to Fannie Mae.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_G...ge_Association

Federal National Mortgage Association

Even though she had no previous training nor experience in finance, Gorelick was appointed Vice Chairman of FNMA from 1997 to 2003. She served alongside former Clinton Administration official Franklin Raines, and earned over 26 million during her six years there. During that period, FNMA developed a $10 billion accounting scandal. [10] One example of falsified financial transactions that helped the company meet earnings targets for 1998, a "manipulation" that triggered multimillion-dollar bonuses for top executives. [11] Gorelick received $779,625. On March 25, 2002, Business Week interviewed Gorelick about the health of "Fanny Mae". [12] Gorelick is quoted as saying, "We believe we are managed safely. We are very pleased that Moody's gave us an A-minus in the area of bank financial strength -- without a reference to the government in any way. Fannie Mae is among the handful of top-quality institutions." [12] One year later, Government Regulators "accused Fannie Mae of improper accounting to the tune of $9 billion in unrecorded losses". [13]

Isn't the time period when the rules were relaxed to allow borrowers who would normally be turned down for mortgages? I f so, it seems the seeds of what is going on now with Fannie and Freddie were sowed during the Clinton Admin.

[tie]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Another thing: who says that Republican administrations are so much better with money? The numbers don't lie, in terms of our debt and budget balancing we did quite well under Clinton. I don't mean to be partisan here, but it is far from a given that you can only have sound fiscal policy and budgeting under a Republican administration.

Nobody says this. Republicans don't know anything about budgets or economics. What planet are you from?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I understand the Republican idea of wanting to minimize wasteful government programs and spending, but I think that these ideas often fall short in their reasoning...

Specifically, in addition to the costs of program x, one needs to consider the costs of *not* having program x, and the profits (both short term and long term, financial and non-financial, direct and indirect) that are possible with the program.

For instance, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are indeed expensive programs, but what would the costs be of *not* having these programs in place?

Well let's see…

• People would have much more of their own money left in their pockets.
• People would have to be responsible for themselves. (why the hell is that always portrayed as a BAD THING?)
• People wouldn't have this entitlement mentality that leads to a greater perpetuation of hyper-expensive and often wasteful programs.
• Our national debt would be much smaller or gone. Maybe.
• Charitable institutions…which are usually better run…would then be more relied upon.
• Without the tax burdens of these expensive systems and in their absence more of said charities would exist and they would receive more money from donations.
• People would have to rely more on the RIGHT people to rely upon in hard times. Their families.
• People who are responsible would be more free to retire WHEN they want to rather than waiting for some magical government handout.

These are just a few off the top of my head and I realize they take a certain degree of speculation. My question to you is, why must we assume that to not have these programs would be a disaster? Many of the problems that exist today are to a great degree CAUSED by government intervention. Like high healthcare costs.

I would also say that not every Republican, I would say that MOST Republicans do not necessarily want these to go away altogether. Just privatized or taken out of the Federal domain and left to the states. Even the Libertarian party admits that by virtue of SS already being so ingrained into our society that it shouldn't necessarily be thrown away.

If every candidate starting going to the ER for treatment, what is this net effect?

I don't really know what you are mean with this statement but I'll run with it anyway.

People using the ER for treatment non-emergencies is part of the problem. In my world, hospitals would be able to turn away anyone who does not face an immediate danger. All those illegals, welfare queens and ignoramuses (like my Mom) who take their kids to the ER for colds and sore throats could be told to go somewhere else.

If old people can't retire, what is this net effect on jobs, and on being able to afford health care and living expenses?

As has been discussed a zillion times, SS was never supposed to be a retirement program. It was meant to prevent old people who, by the way, would have to have lived several YEARS past the average lifespan, from starving to death.

How about education? What are the costs of short-changing education?

What are you talking about? Who wants to "short-change" education? You mean recognizing that decades after the creation of the Dept. of Ed. and increasingly throwing billions at the problem our education still sucks? These days the big Republican issue is school vouchers and I fail to see how this would be "short-changing" anything. The ones who oppose this idea are certainly free to do so but they have no better ideas themselves. They continue to kow tow to the unions and throw more of someone else's money at the problem.

It has been asked why I would support a Democrat, and *this* is part of the reason why - I think many people in here simply aren't looking at the whole economic picture. It is intellectually lazy to come to a conclusion about a particular government program without considering this whole picture.

It is my view that it is the Democrats that are deluded into missing the big picture; that it is the government's mishandling and interference that has created most of the problems Americans are concerned with today.

[medicineman]

Seems you took the two worst examples of government interference in private enterprise. Both involve insurance schemes. The new Medicare Part D is fraught with problems. Before these programs the indigent were covered by Medicare and Medicaid. They were serviced well. Now all medical contracts contain a 'lessor than' clause. Meaning that a provider will charge the rate according to the insurer's schedule of charges or your ordinary charges whichever is less. So what happened when Blue Cross/Blue Shield first came out and offered hospitals a rate of $00/ day for a bed or their ordinary established charge, whichever is less. Previously a hospital could charge $50, $60 or $80 per bed depending on the patient's ability to pay, what to you think the minimum charge became? Of course it became $135, with a guarantee of $100. They certainly were not going to charge less than the Blue's minimum. Same with a doctor visit. Where previously, a mom dropping in for a 'well child' note would not be charged, it now became an official office visit with a guaranteed payment of $45. And the insurance companies would send operatives to test the charging practice. If a doc charged zero, the companies wanted the same privilege. This practice also holds true for pharmacy. And of course the premiums for all these sercvies have risen year after year.

As for education, with payment guarantees from banks and government programs, with the lessor clause, what would universities charge? Why the higher rate of course. If payment were not guaranteed, schooling prices would drop to the market pressure. It would either be affordable or classrooms would have empty seats.

All these programs have done is create an artificial starting level of charges. So if you want to do away with wasteful government programs, these are two you can start with. The only profit making enterprises here are the providers with the assurance of covering payments. All they have accomplished is creating an artificial high cost of services.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Specifically, in addition to the costs of program x, one needs to consider the costs of *not* having program x, and the profits (both short term and long term, financial and non-financial, direct and indirect) that are possible with the program.

Sorry, that was a long poop.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the person you are debating is:

A) Not a ******bag (i.e. they, just like you, are interested in finding the "sweet-spot" where government can most effectively help the largest amount of people).

B) Has considered the costs of not having program x (a/k/a the social cost) and still argues against it.

What do you think this person's reasons for arguing against it are going to be? Note that there is more than one argument, and most of the arguments will apply to any program (which goes towards your observation that the people you argue with aren't sweating the details).

To get you started, let's look at the basis of your thread: wastefulness.

Which is going to be more wasteful in almost any circumstance...

A private entity that competes and must make a profit, or a public entity that has no competition and is entitled to its funding by Congress?

[Dual Porpoise]

Originally Posted by subego 

A private entity that competes and must make a profit, or a public entity that has no competition and is entitled to its funding by Congress?

The jury is pretty clearly out on this one - it depends heavily on the context. In the healthcare arena for example, US govt programs are a lot more efficient than their private counterparts. Generally, in any area where market forces are not able to act effectively (including healthcare, environmental management, transport, communications involving monopolies etc) govt programs are typically more efficient, in many other areas, private entities have an edge. Some of the reasons for this include lack of effective demand (in health care and education), monopolistic tendencies (many areas including some transport), and ability to offload costs onto externalities (environmental management).

[subego]

You are correct that I should have added the caveat of it being a free-market situation.

Edit: and it appears I wasn't totally asleep at the wheel. That I stated the entity needed to compete was directly addressing the monopoly issue.

Originally Posted by Dual Porpoise 

lack of effective demand

Can you elaborate what you mean here? I've done some googling, but would likely benefit from a direct explanation.

'nother edit: I'm not dropping your point about externalities, just taking things one at a time.

[besson3c]

subego, smacintush, and others,

I didn't set this thread up very well...

It seems like there are two fundamental sets of issues here, and I just want to prevent us from talking past each other like often happens here (and I'm guilty of too). One set is a philosophical one: what *should* the government be in the business to provide us with? What do we want them to do? I know what many of the answers to these sorts of questions will be, but the problem is that if one person feels strongly that the government should not be involved at all with issue while the other person feels that it is their moral responsibility, this is a stopping point. Talking about government programs will be a non-starter for the one person while not talking about them will be a non-starter for the other person.

What I've been trying to do is to sort of set aside these philosophical issues as best as we can and try to look at the second set of issues as objectively as we can, and that is who is in a better position to provide better, cheaper, more efficient service all-round? However, let's not dive into specifics with specific issues just yet, because I was trying to touch on some fundamental questions there too...

What I was trying to point out was the idea that sometimes it is best not to throw the baby out with the bathwater if there is something undesirable in the tub (unless it is a turd, but that destroys my analogy!). Before we proceed, do we agree with this basic premise? Do you acknowledge that it is possible that not having certain programs can be costlier than having them, and that it is important to carefully consider certain programs as investments sometimes not having immediate tangible returns?

Let's keep this thread about some very fundamental issues and ideas rather than just splurging into the specific nitty gritty, just for fun, okay?

[Dual Porpoise]

Originally Posted by subego 

You are correct that I should have added the caveat of it being a free-market situation.

Edit: and it appears I wasn't totally asleep at the wheel. That I stated the entity needed to compete was directly addressing the monopoly issue.

cool - the issue here is that government usually ends up running something because there is no effective free market situation, either because the thing is naturally monopolistic, or for other reasons.

Originally Posted by subego 

Can you elaborate what you mean here? I've done some googling, but would likely benefit from a direct explanation.

Effective demand is demand by someone who has money. There is demand from the homeless for healthcare, but they are not able to express 'effective demand'. It is a term used by economists to mean demand by people who can afford to pay, as opposed to demand (or need) from people who can't. It is particularly important when talking about necessary services like food or health in situations where people need them, but cannot afford them. You could start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_demand

To put this another way, free markets are supposed to work because demand will create supply (or was it the other way around?) - well, that's only true for EFFECTIVE DEMAND, because obviously, demand by people with no money will have no effect on markets. You can't, for example, privatize child protective services, because the children being abused, while they can demand help, can't pay for it - they are exhibiting no EFFECTIVE DEMAND (sorry for shouting, I mean italics) in economic terms. Now, of course, you can counter that while there is no market per se for child protective services, you could create one by contracting or somesuch, but the issues there involve there still being no real effective market because the people using the service are not the people choosing it. These sorts of schemes generally end up costing more and being less effective than govts simply doing it themselves. Does that make sense?

Originally Posted by subego 

'nother edit: I'm not dropping your point about externalities, just taking things one at a time.

cool.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Dual Porpoise 

Effective demand is demand by someone who has money...

I appreciate the explanation, it's better than the Wiki one (honest on both counts, no snark ), but I'm still not understanding how a lack of effective demand causes private industry to be wasteful.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

and that is who is in a better position to provide better, cheaper, more efficient service all-round?

Isn't the problem one of priorities? There isn't a single acceptable answer to your question, and which answer is "best" depends on priorities.

Are you familiar with this diagram:




Edit: a quick refresher, just in case...

The closer you get to one corner of the triangle (frex, "cheaper") the more you lose-out on the other corners (if you are at "cheaper" you are not "faster" or "better").

[Dual Porpoise]

Originally Posted by subego 

I appreciate the explanation, it's better than the Wiki one (honest on both counts, no snark ), but I'm still not understanding how a lack of effective demand causes private industry to be wasteful.

Well I'm not sure I'm committed to the term 'wasteful' in the context of lack of effective demand (it is essentially a value judgement with no economic meaning). I'd prefer to say simply that private industry tends not to able to address issues where there is a lack of effective demand. That may lead them to be wasteful if the resource being 'wasted' is valued only by someone who is unable to exert effective demand, and may lead them simply to ignore the demand, not meeting it at all. The bottom line is that the market signals that are supposed to create efficiency only exist where effective demand is present. I'd prefer to stick with the economic terms of efficiency and inefficiency, since those have agreed definitions, while 'wasteful' is often a matter of opinion.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Dual Porpoise 

The bottom line is that the market signals that are supposed to create efficiency only exist where effective demand is present. I'd prefer to stick with the economic terms of efficiency and inefficiency, since those have agreed definitions, while 'wasteful' is often a matter of opinion.

I'm good with the change of terms.

I have to ask though, in a somewhat Heisenbergian manner, won't whatever method used to create effective demand distort the market away from free?

IOW, how efficient is the creation of effective demand where it didn't exist before?

[Dual Porpoise]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm good with the change of terms.

I have to ask though, in a somewhat Heisenbergian manner, won't whatever method used to create effective demand distort the market away from free?

IOW, how efficient is the creation of effective demand where it didn't exist before?

Well yes, attempts to create markets in areas where they are problematic rarely work, and are rarely as efficient as non-market solutions. The govt just stepping in and providing child protective services, for example, with the necessary oversight, is generally a better solution than trying to create a market for it.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Dual Porpoise 

The govt just stepping in and providing child protective services, for example, with the necessary oversight, is generally a better solution than trying to create a market for it.

Oh yes.

Just to be clear, I was never posing the wastefulness/efficiency issue as a singular argument that trumps all others, I just wanted to be sure that I wasn't totally off WRT this very narrow issue of wastefulness/efficiency.