Interesting argument:
"Inequality is growing in nearly every developed country. According to a report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, over the past 30 years, inequality in Sweden, Germany, Israel, Finland and New Zealand has grown as fast or faster than inequality in the United States, even though these countries have very different welfare systems."
"the governmental challenge is very different today than it was in the progressive era. Back then, government was small and there were few worker safety regulations. The problem was a lack of institutions. Today, government is large, and there is a thicket of regulations, torts and legal encumbrances. The problem is not a lack of institutions; it’s a lack of institutional effectiveness.
The United States spends far more on education than any other nation, with paltry results. It spends far more on health care, again, with paltry results. It spends so much on poverty programs that if we just took that money and handed poor people checks, we would virtually eliminate poverty overnight. In the progressive era, the task was to build programs; today the task is to reform existing ones."
" the moral culture of the nation is very different. The progressive era still had a Victorian culture, with its rectitude and restrictions. Back then, there was a moral horror at the thought of debt. No matter how bad the economic problems became, progressive-era politicians did not impose huge debt burdens on their children. That ethos is clearly gone."
"Today, the country is middle-aged but self-indulgent. Bad habits have accumulated. Interest groups have emerged to protect the status quo. The job is to restore old disciplines, strip away decaying structures and reform the welfare state."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/opinion/brooks-midlife-crisis-economics.html
==
So is the answer to restore discipline and "conservative" values to government, to reform the outlandish, self-indulgent welfare state that we have built?
Originally posted by spruce112358If by "restoring discipline" you mean dismantling the institutions and programs put in place to alleviate poverty, thereby undoing all the progress that was achieved in the progressive era, the answer is a resounding no.
Interesting argument:
"Inequality is growing in nearly every developed country. According to a report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, over the past 30 years, inequality in Sweden, Germany, Israel, Finland and New Zealand has grown as fast or faster than inequality in the United States, even though these countries have ...[text shortened]... government, to reform the outlandish, self-indulgent welfare state that we have built?
The fact that the US is lagging behind other countries in education and healthcare despite all the government expenses involved with these areas has already been thoroughly debated before, and as far as I can remember it had been argued that these paradoxical results were fruit of the structure of education and healthcare in America; that education wasn't centralized enough and that for example there was no equivalent of an NHS when it came to healthcare.
Originally posted by spruce112358He doesn't know anything about Sweden and the problems in my country. He has gotten it completely backwards.
... inequality in Sweden ...
And if he's gotten it completely backwards in the example of Sweden, then who can trust him in any arguments and examples he so gererously gives us?
Originally posted by FabianFnasHe is quoting a report by the OECD.
He doesn't know anything about Sweden and the problems in my country. He has gotten it completely backwards.
And if he's gotten it completely backwards in the example of Sweden, then who can trust him in any arguments and examples he so gererously gives us?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/03/income-inequality-oecd-report-rising_n_857057.html
Originally posted by generalissimoBut those institutions are consuming too much and delivering too little. They are also notoriously hard to reform due to bureaucratic entrenchment and unions. Centralizing will simply create more bureaucracy, not better results. Better results will only come from innovation.
If by "restoring discipline" you mean dismantling the institutions and programs put in place to alleviate poverty, thereby undoing all the progress that was achieved in the progressive era, the answer is a resounding no.
The fact that the US is lagging behind other countries in education and healthcare despite all the government expenses involved w ...[text shortened]... zed enough and that for example there was no equivalent of an NHS when it came to healthcare.
For example, in education, charter schools and on-line teaching are two innovations that hold out a lot of promise for change -- but teacher's unions are four-square against them.
As trade networks expand, capitalism tends to concentrate wealth in fewer hands. By itself this is not a problem - redistributive measures are essentially limitless and societies can benefit from the increased productivity due to increased specialization as global trade expands. However, most countries, including the Nordic ones, have failed to make their taxes more progressive to compensate for the increased concentration of wealth, thus damaging their economies.
Originally posted by spruce112358Charter schools are corporate welfare.
But those institutions are consuming too much and delivering too little. They are also notoriously hard to reform due to bureaucratic entrenchment and unions. Centralizing will simply create more bureaucracy, not better results. Better results will only come from innovation.
For example, in education, charter schools and on-line teaching are two inno ...[text shortened]... that hold out a lot of promise for change -- but teacher's unions are four-square against them.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199245
Originally posted by spruce112358Well, the progressives of the time wanted "bigger government" in some instances, and smaller in others. Social medicine wasn't really on their agenda so much as civil service reform, public spending on parks, etc. I don't think he really understands the history.
Yes. He is arguing that we don't need today what we thought we needed a century ago -- bigger government -- because they government is already very, very big.
Now, how is it that we have the most privatized health care system in the developed world, and yet the most expensive? See, maybe it helps to look at models in the other countries? You know, where they aren't spending as much?
Of course we can look to some of the third world countries who spend next to nothing at all.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraHere's a nice argument I found on-line about why concentrating wealth is what should happeen:
As trade networks expand, capitalism tends to concentrate wealth in fewer hands. By itself this is not a problem - redistributive measures are essentially limitless and societies can benefit from the increased productivity due to increased specialization as global trade expands. However, most countries, including the Nordic ones, have failed to make the ...[text shortened]... gressive to compensate for the increased concentration of wealth, thus damaging their economies.
"Suppose John and Jane both have businesses making and selling widgets. However John is more efficient at making widgets than Jane and can therefore profitably sell his widgets for $9 to Jane's $10.
Over time, John's share of the market increases and Jane's withers. Eventually Jane goes bust and John has 100% of the market.
What just happened? It wasn't that Jane was incapable of making widgets. Or even much less efficient at it. John only had to be a bit more efficient than Jane for our simplified market to result in John supplying all the widgets and Jane none of them.
Now this is exactly what we WANT from markets. We want them to AMPLIFY the faint signals that one technique or company is more effective than another, so that everyone gets the idea and starts copying John's way of doing things and forgets Jane's. That's part of the attraction."
===
So the resulting inequality -- John being the CEO and Jane and a lot of others working for John -- has simply rewarded the most efficient and capable person. What is wrong with that?
Originally posted by spruce112358Its very questionable whether these institutions are "delivering too little" generally speaking in all of the aforementioned countries, never mind being inefficient to a point that would justify their abolition or a radical stripping down.
But those institutions are consuming too much and delivering too little. They are also notoriously hard to reform due to bureaucratic entrenchment and unions. Centralizing will simply create more bureaucracy, not better results. Better results will only come from innovation.
For example, in education, charter schools and on-line teaching are two inno ...[text shortened]... that hold out a lot of promise for change -- but teacher's unions are four-square against them.
This question has been raised before, but it seems you neglected it for some reason, why is it that further centralization wouldn't produce better results in America when it seems to work in virtually all of the countries which tend to perform well in education, such as Finland?
Is it your opinion that teacher's unions' opposition to such innovations are invariably grounded in parochial interests?
Originally posted by Kunsoo"Now, how is it that we have the most privatized health care system in the developed world, and yet the most expensive?"
Well, the progressives of the time wanted "bigger government" in some instances, and smaller in others. Social medicine wasn't really on their agenda so much as civil service reform, public spending on parks, etc. I don't think he really understands the history.
Now, how is it that we have the most privatized health care system in the developed world, an ...[text shortened]... f course we can look to some of the third world countries who spend next to nothing at all.
Not true. The amount of American health care that remains "private" is really quite small. Medicare covers all over 65, where the lion's share of health care dollars are spent. And Medicaid covers the poor. In between, the majority of working Americans are covered by third party insurance plans, mostly employer paid.
I don't know what percentage that leaves in the consumer market, but the percentage is quite small that is truly private.