Posted by Bill Ward on April 7, 2011, 3:56 pm
On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 09:30:01 +0100, Giga2" <"Giga2 wrote:
>> On 4/6/2011 1:03 PM, Vaughn wrote:
>>>> Subsidies don't reduce price, they just shift costs from one person
>>>> to another through compulsion.
>>>
>>> Actually a temporary subsidy for new technology can reduce costs by
>>> creating
>>> demand, (IE: "creating a market"). The larger demand should lead to
>>> manufacturing and distribution efficiencies and competation that can
>>> greatly
>>> reduce unit costs.
>>
>> 1) The initial cost has not been reduced; it has merely been shifted
>> from one demographic to another.
>>
>> 2) Governments are not instituted to 'create markets' or to control
>> economies of scale.
>
> That is part of their role.
No offense, but on what do you base that opinion?
Posted by Giga2 on April 7, 2011, 7:09 pm
> On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 09:30:01 +0100, Giga2" <"Giga2 wrote:
>>> On 4/6/2011 1:03 PM, Vaughn wrote:
>>>>> Subsidies don't reduce price, they just shift costs from one person
>>>>> to another through compulsion.
>>>>
>>>> Actually a temporary subsidy for new technology can reduce costs by
>>>> creating
>>>> demand, (IE: "creating a market"). The larger demand should lead to
>>>> manufacturing and distribution efficiencies and competation that can
>>>> greatly
>>>> reduce unit costs.
>>>
>>> 1) The initial cost has not been reduced; it has merely been shifted
>>> from one demographic to another.
>>>
>>> 2) Governments are not instituted to 'create markets' or to control
>>> economies of scale.
>>
>> That is part of their role.
> No offense, but on what do you base that opinion?
For instance the NHS would be a good example. This is basically a state
controlled healthcare market in the UK, and it works pretty well (*note not
perfectly). There ia also no free market in guns here, or heroine.
Posted by Bill Ward on April 7, 2011, 7:51 pm
On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 20:09:11 +0100, Giga2" <"Giga2 wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 09:30:01 +0100, Giga2" <"Giga2 wrote:
>>
>>>> On 4/6/2011 1:03 PM, Vaughn wrote:
>>>>>> Subsidies don't reduce price, they just shift costs from one person
>>>>>> to another through compulsion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually a temporary subsidy for new technology can reduce costs by
>>>>> creating
>>>>> demand, (IE: "creating a market"). The larger demand should lead to
>>>>> manufacturing and distribution efficiencies and competation that can
>>>>> greatly
>>>>> reduce unit costs.
>>>>
>>>> 1) The initial cost has not been reduced; it has merely been shifted
>>>> from one demographic to another.
>>>>
>>>> 2) Governments are not instituted to 'create markets' or to control
>>>> economies of scale.
>>>
>>> That is part of their role.
>>
>> No offense, but on what do you base that opinion?
>>
> For instance the NHS would be a good example. This is basically a state
> controlled healthcare market in the UK, and it works pretty well (*note
> not perfectly). There ia also no free market in guns here, or heroine.
OK, but I meant to ask on what you base your opinion, not who agrees with
you. Here in the US, we base, or are supposed to base, our government on
the Declaration of Independence, to protect the "self evident" rights to
"life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". The Constitution describes
the mechanism by which that happens, through the application of several
enumerated powers. The power to redistribute wealth, or subsidize, is not
one of the enumerated powers in our Constitution.
That principle's drifted a bit from inattention, but is in the somewhat
messy process of being restored.
AIUI, your system is based on the Magna Carta and tradition. I wouldn't
presume to tell you Brits how to run your country, but do you really
think it's working out better for you now than if you hadn't turned hard
left a few years ago? How long will your healthcare system and all the
other subsidies last?
We're going through a massive reevaluation of the "spend your way out of
debt" plan, and it doesn't look good.
Posted by Giga2 on April 8, 2011, 7:47 am
> On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 20:09:11 +0100, Giga2" <"Giga2 wrote:
>>> On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 09:30:01 +0100, Giga2" <"Giga2 wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On 4/6/2011 1:03 PM, Vaughn wrote:
>>>>>>> Subsidies don't reduce price, they just shift costs from one person
>>>>>>> to another through compulsion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually a temporary subsidy for new technology can reduce costs by
>>>>>> creating
>>>>>> demand, (IE: "creating a market"). The larger demand should lead to
>>>>>> manufacturing and distribution efficiencies and competation that can
>>>>>> greatly
>>>>>> reduce unit costs.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) The initial cost has not been reduced; it has merely been shifted
>>>>> from one demographic to another.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) Governments are not instituted to 'create markets' or to control
>>>>> economies of scale.
>>>>
>>>> That is part of their role.
>>>
>>> No offense, but on what do you base that opinion?
>>>
>> For instance the NHS would be a good example. This is basically a state
>> controlled healthcare market in the UK, and it works pretty well (*note
>> not perfectly). There ia also no free market in guns here, or heroine.
> OK, but I meant to ask on what you base your opinion, not who agrees with
> you. Here in the US, we base, or are supposed to base, our government on
> the Declaration of Independence, to protect the "self evident" rights to
> "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". The Constitution describes
> the mechanism by which that happens, through the application of several
> enumerated powers. The power to redistribute wealth, or subsidize, is not
> one of the enumerated powers in our Constitution.
What about having an army? That is wealth taken from some to pay others so
is a kind of redistribution. Or police, or adminstrators etc.
> That principle's drifted a bit from inattention, but is in the somewhat
> messy process of being restored.
> AIUI, your system is based on the Magna Carta and tradition. I wouldn't
> presume to tell you Brits how to run your country, but do you really
> think it's working out better for you now than if you hadn't turned hard
> left a few years ago?
What you mean even more socialist!? Definitely not.
> How long will your healthcare system and all the
> other subsidies last?
UK healthcare system one of the most efficient in the world AFAIK.
> We're going through a massive reevaluation of the "spend your way out of
> debt" plan, and it doesn't look good.
Don't you mean 'borrow your way out of debt' lol.
>
Posted by Bill Ward on April 8, 2011, 3:28 pm
On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 08:47:28 +0100, Giga2" <"Giga2 wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 20:09:11 +0100, Giga2" <"Giga2 wrote:
>>
>>>> On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 09:30:01 +0100, Giga2" <"Giga2 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/6/2011 1:03 PM, Vaughn wrote:
>>>>>>>> Subsidies don't reduce price, they just shift costs from one
>>>>>>>> person to another through compulsion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actually a temporary subsidy for new technology can reduce costs
>>>>>>> by creating
>>>>>>> demand, (IE: "creating a market"). The larger demand should lead
>>>>>>> to manufacturing and distribution efficiencies and competation
>>>>>>> that can greatly
>>>>>>> reduce unit costs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) The initial cost has not been reduced; it has merely been
>>>>>> shifted from one demographic to another.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) Governments are not instituted to 'create markets' or to control
>>>>>> economies of scale.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is part of their role.
>>>>
>>>> No offense, but on what do you base that opinion?
>>>>
>>> For instance the NHS would be a good example. This is basically a
>>> state controlled healthcare market in the UK, and it works pretty well
>>> (*note not perfectly). There ia also no free market in guns here, or
>>> heroine.
>>
>> OK, but I meant to ask on what you base your opinion, not who agrees
>> with you. Here in the US, we base, or are supposed to base, our
>> government on the Declaration of Independence, to protect the "self
>> evident" rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". The
>> Constitution describes the mechanism by which that happens, through the
>> application of several enumerated powers. The power to redistribute
>> wealth, or subsidize, is not one of the enumerated powers in our
>> Constitution.
>
> What about having an army? That is wealth taken from some to pay others
> so is a kind of redistribution. Or police, or adminstrators etc.
Providing for the common defense is one of, and one might argue, the most
important of the enumerated powers. I view it as purchasing and
overseeing a necessary service, not as "redistribution". The same could
be said for providing a justice system. Redistribution is taking one
taxpayer's money and giving it to another because of some perceived
"entitlement" to certain goods others have produced, such as health care,
food, housing, windmills, and other unearned values.
Those are not included in the basic human rights of "life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness" guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence,
and enforced by the Constitution. To guarantee them is to impose slavery
on those who must then provide them without compensation.
>> That principle's drifted a bit from inattention, but is in the somewhat
>> messy process of being restored.
>>
>> AIUI, your system is based on the Magna Carta and tradition. I
>> wouldn't presume to tell you Brits how to run your country, but do you
>> really think it's working out better for you now than if you hadn't
>> turned hard left a few years ago?
>
> What you mean even more socialist!? Definitely not.
What do you think is the difference between redistribution and socialism?
>> How long will your healthcare system and all the other subsidies last?
>
> UK healthcare system one of the most efficient in the world AFAIK.
Fine, as long as you're happy, but I've heard differently.
>> We're going through a massive reevaluation of the "spend your way out
>> of debt" plan, and it doesn't look good.
>
> Don't you mean 'borrow your way out of debt' lol.
That too, but IMHO, if we stayed within the Constitution, we wouldn't be
in debt.
XML site map
>>>> Subsidies don't reduce price, they just shift costs from one person
>>>> to another through compulsion.
>>>
>>> Actually a temporary subsidy for new technology can reduce costs by
>>> creating
>>> demand, (IE: "creating a market"). The larger demand should lead to
>>> manufacturing and distribution efficiencies and competation that can
>>> greatly
>>> reduce unit costs.
>>
>> 1) The initial cost has not been reduced; it has merely been shifted
>> from one demographic to another.
>>
>> 2) Governments are not instituted to 'create markets' or to control
>> economies of scale.
>
> That is part of their role.