Feb 9th 2012, 18:44:44
Originally posted by qzjul:
The idea behind guaranteed minimum income wasn't to set it at a level where everybody can sit around and buy a mercedes... the idea is to make the ultra-poor have enough money to buy medication they need, and sleep in a heated apartment rather than on the streets, and perhaps be able to afford something as cheap as kraft dinner; so that they can live a minimal existence while attempting to get their lives back together.
The point of it though, is that it *saves* a TON of money because letting health conditions go untreated costs MUCH more in the long run -- it's very inefficient; people living on the streets causes health problems -- again inefficient; homeless shelters are all very well and good, but when people end up in those situations they become desperate, and many either get into or get back into, or can't get out of things like drug habits -- again inefficient; sending people to prison ALSO costs a fortune, just providing them with an income to prevent crime would be much more efficient, as you don't have to fund such a huge prison system or police state.
Government can be inefficient, but the point of government is to do things that private individuals or corporations *won't* do on their own -- for example, infrastructure; I don't think any infrastructure SHOULDN'T be either directly controlled by or HEAVILY REGULATED by government; as it's inefficient to have two companies building out cell towers all over the Canadian north for example - and in the current private world it just doesn't happen.
I'm not arguing that government *IS* efficient -- more that it's purpose is to do things that private corporations wouldn't.
If you're so into no-government scenarios, why don't you privatize the military?
The point of it though, is that it *saves* a TON of money because letting health conditions go untreated costs MUCH more in the long run -- it's very inefficient; people living on the streets causes health problems -- again inefficient; homeless shelters are all very well and good, but when people end up in those situations they become desperate, and many either get into or get back into, or can't get out of things like drug habits -- again inefficient; sending people to prison ALSO costs a fortune, just providing them with an income to prevent crime would be much more efficient, as you don't have to fund such a huge prison system or police state.
Government can be inefficient, but the point of government is to do things that private individuals or corporations *won't* do on their own -- for example, infrastructure; I don't think any infrastructure SHOULDN'T be either directly controlled by or HEAVILY REGULATED by government; as it's inefficient to have two companies building out cell towers all over the Canadian north for example - and in the current private world it just doesn't happen.
I'm not arguing that government *IS* efficient -- more that it's purpose is to do things that private corporations wouldn't.
If you're so into no-government scenarios, why don't you privatize the military?
What won't private corporations do? I'm certainly not arguing for a privatized military although I wouldn't oppose streamlining the military bureaucracy. I agree there are certain functions that can and should be governmental by nature such as military, veterans affairs, law enforcement, etc.
In your example, I don't think the government is the most efficient person to build cell towers. I think two separate companies would be far more efficient. The government would need a year just to create task forces to determine potential locations. Those task forces would need staffers and then you would have the public input section. If said towers obstructed a view you could expect a lawsuit requiring extensive litigation--baring in mind that unlike a private corporation, the government isn't really worrying about these sort of costs. Once we get by these hurdles we'll need to create inter-agency memorandums of understanding so that cell tower agency staffer 1 can work with FCC staffer 2. These MOUs will need to be reviewed, coded and filed taking a month or two. And now that we get down to this level, would we build it? No, then we would probably shop out the individualized parts via the RFIP process, except then we need another task force to investigation having a solid mix of contractors including minority and women-owned businesses. Of course if someone disputes our RFIP selection then the process is delayed for an appeal. And of course we have to pay the auditors and appeals folks in case of this potential happenstance. Now we finally got our contractors...oh wait, one has a costoverrun you say (yes, because they all underbid to win jobs) then we need to send in our crack CPAs and lawyers to determine if the contract was violated meanwhile work has stopped. And this is really only the most simplified version of it....do you really find this all to be more productive than company A doing it from the getgo? Especially when all company A does is put up cell towers?