i <3 stossel, part 536312

[caspian_x]

John Stossel in this article pretty much sums up why I think the government should keep it's grubby, in efficient hands out of healthcare, agriculture, education (at least to less of a degree than it already does), transportation, space exploration, and pretty much everything else it has taken upon itself to remove from the private sector without

Comments

[caspian_x]

Re-structuring society would like that would drive the divide between the haves and have-nots even further.

I disagree. Basic economics tells us that the ONLY way to reduce prices for everyone is to allow competition and free markets to thrive. Governments controlling things and introducing price floors and price ceilings benefit a few people but make us feel good. It does not benefit the overall economy.

As Vector said, corporations are beholden only to their (wealthy) shareholders, and could cut out things like school-lunch programs or financial aid for healthcare simply because they weren't turning a profit. Hey look how efficient we are now!

EXACLTY. They'd be free to do that, and you'd be free to take your kid elsewhere. COMPETITION would dictate that they'd be stupid to try such an idiotic move. Your comment is very telling. We are so entrenched in a society with a government ruining the free markets that we don't even THINK that way anymore. We just think "Oh man, we'd be stuck without a lunch program!" a free market is just that. FREE.

Space exploration? At this point in time there's absolutely no motivation for private companies to get involved.

Oh no?

[coffeejedi]

Space tourism != space exploration.
While its cool and sexy to fly people up and back down in a high tech jet, there's no scientific value in it. Real research is done with radio telescopes and interplanetary sattelites, valuable for knowlege but there's no monetary gain. I cringe every time some blowhard politician talks about slashing NASA's budget as a "wastefull expense".

[caspian_x]

A fair point. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about research in the hands of government. On one hand, for things like medicine, I don't see why it needs government intervention. Medical breakthroughs are profitable, they should get plenty of private capital. On the other hand I know that not all research is profitable and some is necessary, so I don't know if the private sector is up to the task. I'll have to look into this more...

Other than research though, I can't think of anything - including healthcare - that needs to be run by the government.

[coffeejedi]

What about the FDA? Could you imagine if the pharmaceuticals were purely self regulating?

I agree that we need to trim the government back, and streamline it, but lets not forget that we live in a country for, of, and by the people. The idea behind these regulatory bodies is to give the citizens power over corporations. Stossel doesn't want people to be citizens, he wants us to be consumers, beholden to a conglomerate of unchecked corporations. This laissez faire system is sort of like communism in that it works great in theory, but not in practice.

[caspian_x]

He's not against all regulation. The FDA has its place and ensures people's safety. Regulations for safety and efficacy are fine. It's the economic market the government needs to stay out of. So, yes, regulating healthcare is fine. Providing it - especially as a monopoly - is not.

[vectorb]

The poor have no choice to take their kids anywhere, other than though government help

[caspian_x]

Ok, granted. But they should have a choice in the matter. Not forced into a single school by the government. That way competition still drives improvements.