Stop the welfare, and private entities will take over?

[Mia]

If a mod will please move this if it is out of place,,,,,I didn't see a section for social issues.

Someone just reminded me of what happened in the 80's when Reagan shut down so many mental institutions funded by the government, and said that the community would take over that responsibility.

Well, it didn't. It just dumped MI in the streets to be homeless.

To me, this debunks the argument that the community will take care of people if their tax dollars are no longer taken to house and care for them via the government.

[Kamehameha34]

I believe what you cite is symptomatic of sudden removal of government aid - the key word being sudden.

You can't honestly compare the spontaneous shutting down of government sponsored institutions to a gradual phasing out of government from social issues. I am very confident that we would have had different results if there was no government involvement in mental institutions from the beginning.

Most proponents of a lasseiz-faire policy don't suggest that private entities are constantly on stand-by for when the government 'pulls the rug' out from under citizens.

[Tharagor]

You can't honestly compare the spontaneous shutting down of government sponsored institutions to a gradual phasing out of government from social issues. I am very confident that we would have had different results if there was no government involvement in mental institutions from the beginning.


Can you explain your reasons why?

[Kamehameha34]

My reasons for which of the two statements quoted?

[Tharagor]

Both.

[Kamehameha34]

It's simple- it takes time for need for a service or product to translate into supply - in any system. Creating an instant and debilitating need doesn't allow time for a supply to be created.

That's what removing all government funding from mental institution creates: an instant and debilitating need.

[Tharagor]

It's simple- it takes time for need for a service or product to translate into supply - in any system. Creating an instant and debilitating need doesn't allow time for a supply to be created.

That's what removing all government funding from mental institution creates: an instant and debilitating need.


Why do you, in this case, think that supply would be created at all?

[Mia]

It's simple- it takes time for need for a service or product to translate into supply - in any system. Creating an instant and debilitating need doesn't allow time for a supply to be created.

That's what removing all government funding from mental institution creates: an instant and debilitating need.


That is a good point, but 20 years later we still have homeless mentally ill people roaming the streets. That's a lot of time for private entities to take over,,,,and they haven't.

[Tharagor]

It's simple- it takes time for need for a service or product to translate into supply - in any system. Creating an instant and debilitating need doesn't allow time for a supply to be created.

That's what removing all government funding from mental institution creates: an instant and debilitating need.


That is a good point, but 20 years later we still have homeless mentally ill people roaming the streets. That's a lot of time for private entities to take over,,,,and they haven't.


Nor will they because there's no money in it.

[Kamehameha34]

It's simple- it takes time for need for a service or product to translate into supply - in any system. Creating an instant and debilitating need doesn't allow time for a supply to be created.

That's what removing all government funding from mental institution creates: an instant and debilitating need.


Why do you, in this case, think that supply would be created at all?


I'm not arguing that supply would be created, I'm saying that the situation she cited is not analogous to what proponents of lasseiz-faire policy suggest.[hr]That is a good point, but 20 years later we still have homeless mentally ill people roaming the streets. That's a lot of time for private entities to take over,,,,and they haven't.

Testament to the fact that the government-run mental institutions, which do still exist, are an inadequate system.

[Drocket]

Testament to the fact that the government-run mental institutions, which do still exist, are an inadequate system.

Yes, they are - because the programs that run them were massively cut, and have never even come close to regaining the funding they need. You don't get to massively cut a program, then use the fact that it's not running well as proof that it doesn't work. All you've proven is that gutting them wasn't a terribly wise plan in the first place.

[Mia]

Not to mention follow-up services for when people are released. Maybe they aren't so ill as to require confinement, but too ill to even manage the system of getting welfare, getting to Drs, staying on meds and in programs,,,,,,,,,

Kame, it's been 20 years - where is the private help that was supposed to materialize? I've agreed with you it can't be expected to happen suddenly.

[Kamehameha34]

Testament to the fact that the government-run mental institutions, which do still exist, are an inadequate system.

Yes, they are - because the programs that run them were massively cut, and have never even come close to regaining the funding they need. You don't get to massively cut a program, then use the fact that it's not running well as proof that it doesn't work. All you've proven is that gutting them wasn't a terribly wise plan in the first place.

The old system was equality inadequate in that it gave the government too much power over social issues.

My point is that the government's role now is not lasseiz-faire, so you can't treat it as such in a debate.

Not to mention follow-up services for when people are released. Maybe they aren't so ill as to require confinement, but too ill to even manage the system of getting welfare, getting to Drs, staying on meds and in programs,,,,,,,,,

Kame, it's been 20 years - where is the private help that was supposed to materialize? I've agreed with you it can't be expected to happen suddenly.


Perhaps I've been misunderstood.

When I said that government involvement should be phased out gradually, I meant via attrition. I was not suggesting that those left homeless would eventually find their way back into the care of private entities, I was saying that as the next generation faces a reality without such government aid, society would find a way to accomodate them.

[Tharagor]

I'm not arguing that supply would be created, I'm saying that the situation she cited is not analogous to what proponents of lasseiz-faire policy suggest.


Okay, so you're not a proponent of lasseiz-faire policy? I was hoping to get some insight into it as it makes no sense to me.


Testament to the fact that the government-run mental institutions, which do still exist, are an inadequate system.


Yes, fewer in number and with less funding than before.

[Kamehameha34]

Okay, so you're not a proponent of lasseiz-faire policy? I was hoping to get some insight into it as it makes no sense to me.
Stop mincing my words. I was arguing that the situation presented was not analogous to a lasseiz-faire policy. It doesn't matter which I am a proponent for, because that's not what's argued.

Yes, fewer in number and with less funding than before. See my previous reply.

[Alonzo]

It was Kennedy, not Reagan, who played the greatest role in deinstitutionalization.


I believe what you cite is symptomatic of sudden removal of government aid - the key word being sudden.

You can't honestly compare the spontaneous shutting down of government sponsored institutions to a gradual phasing out of government from social issues. I am very confident that we would have had different results if there was no government involvement in mental institutions from the beginning.

Most proponents of a lasseiz-faire policy don't suggest that private entities are constantly on stand-by for when the government 'pulls the rug' out from under citizens.


It wasn't really sudden. They had a decent plan for it but they simply didn't fund it, and the community environments these people needed to be in were denied. Most beneficial communities turned their back and they ended up in drug and crime infested parts of cities, where often even the social workers were afraid to go.

But it was also overly ambitious. Many people it kicked out of institutions simply weren't equipped to deal with it. How many could have changed that is debatable, but the programs needed to do so weren't there and many patients at those clinics did not have the skills to live outside them.

[Kamehameha34]

When I say sudden, I mean within a generation. A generation made dependent on government benefits shouldn't have it revoked.

[Tharagor]

Stop mincing my words. I was arguing that the situation presented was not analogous to a lasseiz-faire policy. It doesn't matter which I am a proponent for, because that's not what's argued.


I didn't mince anything. I thought at first you might be which prompted a certain reply. Then you indicated that you might not be, so I retracted.

I guess I should ask, are you or aren't you?

[Kamehameha34]

I didn't mince anything. I thought at first you might be which prompted a certain reply. Then you indicated that you might not be, so I retracted.

The first two sentences contradict eachother.

It doesn't matter what I am at this point, because I am not arguing its merits. Infact, even if I were arguing its merits, it wouldn't matter. It should not affect how you respond to my arguments.

[Tharagor]

I didn't mince anything. I thought at first you might be which prompted a certain reply. Then you indicated that you might not be, so I retracted.

The first two sentences contradict eachother.

It doesn't matter what I am at this point, because I am not arguing its merits. Infact, even if I were arguing its merits, it wouldn't matter. It should not affect how you respond to my arguments.


I apologize, but that makes little sense.

[Kamehameha34]

I didn't mince anything. I thought at first you might be which prompted a certain reply. Then you indicated that you might not be, so I retracted.

The first two sentences contradict eachother.

It doesn't matter what I am at this point, because I am not arguing its merits. Infact, even if I were arguing its merits, it wouldn't matter. It should not affect how you respond to my arguments.


I apologize, but that makes little sense.



Someone from either camp should be capable of making a sound argument for either position. Because one holds a belief, doesn't mean that one is obligated to defend it in a debate. The only points that should be considered are those made in the argument, not whether or not the delivery was sincere.

I choose to withhold my stance to avoid the sort of "pre-emptive" posting that usually finds itself in the way of intelligent discourse.

[Tharagor]

Someone from either camp should be capable of making a sound argument for either position.


I respectfully choose to disagree.


The only points that should be considered are those made in the argument, not whether or not the delivery was sincere.


Agreed, when logical argument is made.


I choose to withhold my stance to avoid the sort of "pre-emptive" posting that usually finds itself in the way of intelligent discourse.


No "pre-emptive" posting on my part. I thought I noticed a position and decided to verify to perhaps engage.

[Kamehameha34]

I respectfully choose to disagree.
There are those that can argue for either side, which is why one's personal persuasion is none of the concern of the other party.

Agreed, when logical argument is made.

Even an illogical argument can be shown to be illogical without accounting for the personal opinions of its author.
No "pre-emptive" posting on my part. I thought I noticed a position and decided to verify to perhaps engage. You addressed me, operating on a premise that you had no right to assume. Many find that disrespectful.[hr]I don't want to derail the thread any further. If someone wants to continue the discussion, start a thread on debating etiquette and I may participate.

Is there anyone that disagrees with my assertion that the situation cited in the OP is not equivalent to modern propositions of lasseiz-faire policy?

[Tharagor]

There are those that can argue for either side, which is why one's personal persuasion is none of the concern of the other party.


Those who can truly hold neither opinion.


Even an illogical argument can be shown to be illogical without accounting for the personal opinions of its author.


I agree. That wasn't the point.


You addressed me, operating on a premise that you had no right to assume. Many find that disrespectful.


I addressed you because of what you said in such a manner to verify and upon verification move forwards to address further.

I feel sorry for any who finds that disrespectful.

[Tessy]

Yep, disrespectful it is.

Don't worry Kamehameha34, most but obviously not all, people are smart
enough to understand that free markets work on supply and demand and
further how supply and demand in tandem with competition work. It's a
very simple formula really - which is one reason it works so well. Our
current fabian socialist government tries so hard to ignore this formula
and their failure at every turn and attempt is marked as yet more evidence
in favor of the obvious.

It may take a total breakdown of the system before the stubborn-minded
actually can see what is so obvious.

[Tharagor]

It may take a total breakdown of the system before the stubborn-minded
actually can see what is so obvious.


It has less to do with Fabianism than the fact that capitalism is a "follow the money" proposition.

Private enterprise follows the dollar flow. Further, unless the enterprise is non-profit, the enterprise cares most about providing the lowest level of service without sacrificing profitability.

[Tessy]

You're describing corporatism. Which is what the USA is currently. A
fascist corporate state. You should get your "isms" right.

[Tharagor]

You're describing corporatism. Which is what the USA is currently. A
fascist corporate state. You should get your "isms" right.


To whom was that comment directed>

[Keith Hamburger]

To whom was that comment directed>

I thought it was pretty obvious, but I'll fill in for Tessy, the comment was directed at you.

See, capitalism, or more accurately, true free enterprise doesn't follow the money, it follows the values. Everyone is free to work for that which they value most. The current system we have is no where near a free market but is heavily tilted towards a corporate mercantilist system. Especially in health care, and it's extension, mental health care.

There is so much wrong with pointing the finger at a single issue from a single change that it would be nearly impossible to cover all the points. To free up the energy and willpower to do something in mental health we would have to go far beyond just shutting down the support systems, we would need to dismantle the health care system that is paid nearly half by government and the remainder being heavily corporatized.

But, of course, if you are just looking for excuses to control the lives of others through government, this is as good of one as any.

Keith

[Tharagor]

See, capitalism, or more accurately, true free enterprise doesn't follow the money, it follows the values. Everyone is free to work for that which they value most. The current system we have is no where near a free market but is heavily tilted towards a corporate mercantilist system. Especially in health care, and it's extension, mental health care.


"Values"? You mean money. Diluting the concept by using the word "values" obscures the facts from view. But then, that's common in economics. Capitalism is and has always been about accumulating as much of it as possible. That's the fundamental theory of free-market capitalism. It's also one of the downsides of free-market capitalism.

Supposedly quality affects the demand-supply curve. However, that does not always appear to be the case.

Companies decrease quality to decrease cost and we generally ignore it and soak it up. The largest retailer in the world is known for the poor quality of many of the products they sell, but people still shop there because the prices are lower.

Theory holds that people make value decisions for their purchases.

Companies use marketing to inculcate us into a shopping mentality. Just changing the packaging can induce a person to purchase the product.

Theory holds that workers control the supply of their time so they set wages.

In reality, through creative-destruction and other forces, capitalistic economies will always have some unemployment. Control over wages decrease as income/relative job level decreases, causing the majority of a workforce to have no control over wage setting.

A free-market economy is a wild roller-coaster ride of ups and downs. Yes, the long term trend is generally up, but a more controlled slower system is more stable and can easily maintain an upward trend.

Most concerning about free-market economics is the lack of trade restrictions. Free trade throughout the world, assuming of course only in those nations that maintain the rule of law and guarantee protection of property rights even for foreigners, would result in diversion of wealth from developed nations to developing nations as companies scramble for the cheaper labor, raw goods, and new markets increasing the unemployment rate and decreasing the quality of life for citizens in developed nations.

Eventually the ditribution of wealth may stabilize globally and then a true global economy could proceed, but that would take many generations and be devestating to developed nations in the short term.

All in all, I see little value in free-market economics.

[Keith Hamburger]

"Values"? You mean money. Diluting the concept by using the word "values" obscures the facts from view. But then, that's common in economics. Capitalism is and has always been about accumulating as much of it as possible. That's the fundamental theory of free-market capitalism. It's also one of the downsides of free-market capitalism.

...

All in all, I see little value in free-market economics.


I would suggest you move away from your obsession with dollars and study some actual economics.

Values, especially to Austrian economists, the strongest advocates of the free market system, are far more than money. Values are what define wealth, and wealth is a far broader topic than how much money you have. Economics is the study of human motivations, and human motivations are far more than money. Sure, governments, when they control the "economy" focus almost solely on material wealth, but humans make decisions based on far broader terms.

When the company holding the contract I've been working on for the past three and a half years changed in December, they offered me a 10% raise to stay on. That wasn't enough dollars (sure, it's a motivator, but not the only one) for me to keep the job. I turned them down to spend time doing things I value more. Turns out, they offered me more money so I could hire done some of the things I wanted to do in the time I would have available, and I'm still working there. But there was much more involved in the decision than the money. I was willing to give up the money (at several times the poverty level, even if I were the sole supporter of my family) in return for things I valued more, reduction in stress, free time to accomplish personal goals and more.

A strong economy, which is only possible the more free the economy is, that has been empirically proven, is the greatest liberator. When you have the current situation we have today, or more so if you have your way, where one person has to work full time to support the government while the other has to work full time to support their family, money becomes the primary motivator. When taxes are lower, inflation is low to non-existent, regulations are minimized, then other values can take the forefront. More people can volunteer, or work so they can donate to help others, or spend more time with their family.

Socialist economies can never allow individuals to achieve higher levels in the Malthusian heirarch of values, everyone is working to support their family or to support the government. Only free and prosperous economies can provide the opportunities for individuals to maximize their own values.

Keith

[PostmodernProphet]

Someone just reminded me of what happened in the 80's when Reagan shut down so many mental institutions funded by the government

actually, while Reagan did rescind the lameduck provisions Carter ordered, without provision of a funding source, which would have provided an expansion of mental institutions, the cutbacks in funding that resulted in mentally ill people being released into the streets primarily occurred during the 70s.....

http://www.sociology.org/content/vol003.004/thomas.html

[Tharagor]

I would suggest you move away from your obsession with dollars and study some actual economics.


I have and I am quite familiar with the concepts you're mentioning.


Values, especially to Austrian economists, the strongest advocates of the free market system, are far more than money. Values are what define wealth, and wealth is a far broader topic than how much money you have. Economics is the study of human motivations, and human motivations are far more than money. Sure, governments, when they control the "economy" focus almost solely on material wealth, but humans make decisions based on far broader terms.


Wealth has to be measurable. In real world terms wealth is the sum of a persons assets.

Now, if you're talking about subjective wealth, the perceived value of what is being offered for what is being asked, that's another concept altogether and is, for the most part, illusory.


When the company holding the contract I've been working on for the past three and a half years changed in December, they offered me a 10% raise to stay on. That wasn't enough dollars (sure, it's a motivator, but not the only one) for me to keep the job. I turned them down to spend time doing things I value more. Turns out, they offered me more money so I could hire done some of the things I wanted to do in the time I would have available, and I'm still working there. But there was much more involved in the decision than the money. I was willing to give up the money (at several times the poverty level, even if I were the sole supporter of my family) in return for things I valued more, reduction in stress, free time to accomplish personal goals and more.


That is a fine description of the subjective concept I mentioned previously. It doesn't matter in real world terms because it takes many other things into account that have nothing to do with wealth in any real sense and economic realities many people face every day such as, if I pay this bill two weeks late I can buy groceries tonight, or if I can buy generic canned vegetables I can put some gas in my car, or if I wake up two hours earlier every day for the next two weeks I can take the bus and pay my rent instead of putting gas in my car.

Most people don't have the same value judgments to consider that you clearly do and so your value judgment concept means nothing to them.


A strong economy, which is only possible the more free the economy is, that has been empirically proven, is the greatest liberator. When you have the current situation we have today, or more so if you have your way, where one person has to work full time to support the government while the other has to work full time to support their family, money becomes the primary motivator. When taxes are lower, inflation is low to non-existent, regulations are minimized, then other values can take the forefront. More people can volunteer, or work so they can donate to help others, or spend more time with their family.


Actually, that is entirely incorrect. What has been proven is that a combination of a free-trade economy and a centrally planned one is the most efficient.

History has shown that free-trade economies always result in wild economic swings. Sometimes people can't see the forest for the trees, but even if the United States removed all forms of sales tax and all worker protections laws (both of which limit "free trade") we would still not have a free-trade economy. The Federal Reserve was put in place to control the wild swings of inflation and depression. The regulation of the monetary supply is an aspect of central planning, it's just not as severe as most Communistic nations employed and other socialistic nations are employing.


Socialist economies can never allow individuals to achieve higher levels in the Malthusian heirarch of values, everyone is working to support their family or to support the government. Only free and prosperous economies can provide the opportunities for individuals to maximize their own values.


Of course Socialist economies cannot achieve the same level of success as capitalistic ones. The primary flaw of socialism is a too high estimation of humans. We are, at our core, greedy and self-centered. For that reason, we are most driven, when an activity can benefit us directly. Conversely, people tend to become less productive when they don't benefit directly.

We have yet to hit the right balance.

As evidence that the more free an economy is the more erratic it becomes, ask yourself how many depressions we had prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve System and enforced cessation of trading and how many have we had since?

We had five depressions between 1807 and 1941. They lasted a cumulative 37 years, or 28% of the 134 year period in question. We have had none since. I'd say that was pretty good empirical evidence that some balance between free trade and central planning is the correct answer.

I'm curious how one can then say that "free market capitalism" is really the answer considering the obvious evidence. I'm even more curious as to why so many people are welded to the inane concept of binary theories.

[4Reaganomics]

Most concerning about free-market economics is the lack of trade restrictions. Free trade throughout the world, assuming of course only in those nations that maintain the rule of law and guarantee protection of property rights even for foreigners, would result in diversion of wealth from developed nations to developing nations as companies scramble for the cheaper labor, raw goods, and new markets increasing the unemployment rate and decreasing the quality of life for citizens in developed nations.


Trade Economists widely believe that free trade is always beneficial. It is in every goddam textbook that you pick up anymore.

There are immense gains to be had in free trade. From Ricardo, to a Labor Specialization model, to what Hecksher and Ohlin told us out of the Stockholm school, to a Specific factors model, along with the vast amount of study that is currently being done in Academia, they all come to the conclusion that free trade is beneficial.

I feel truly sorry for the less educated who believe Ross Perot when he says he "can hear the sucking away of American jobs to Mexico" This is true, but notice something that you don't need to be an Econ major to figure out. Unemployment is still low and GDP has grown at a good rate. This shows us that when auto plants shut down, new jobs were employed here from companies like e-bay and goodle.

Which leads me to my next point, in International trade there is enough of a gain that those who are in the beneficial sector can compensate those in the losing sector and still retain some of their gains.

I know a few people are going to get on me on this one, probably a few libertarians, but I believe that trade assistance is a very good tool to use in our economy. It is much better than the myriad of hand-outs that are currently given out, and it helps hard workers transition into a new skill oriented job.

Also, the way the a country's growth affects it's terms of trade isn't as simple as you make it sound. If their growth is biased towards exports, it will indeed experience a decline in terms of trade. But now we are getting into a discussion of complex models that can be had at another time.

It gets a lot more complicated than this, but in short Free Trade is always beneficial. Always

[Tessy]

To whom was that comment directed>

I thought it was pretty obvious, but I'll fill in for Tessy, the comment was directed at you.

See, capitalism, or more accurately, true free enterprise doesn't follow the money, it follows the values. Everyone is free to work for that which they value most. The current system we have is no where near a free market but is heavily tilted towards a corporate mercantilist system. Especially in health care, and it's extension, mental health care.

There is so much wrong with pointing the finger at a single issue from a single change that it would be nearly impossible to cover all the points. To free up the energy and willpower to do something in mental health we would have to go far beyond just shutting down the support systems, we would need to dismantle the health care system that is paid nearly half by government and the remainder being heavily corporatized.

But, of course, if you are just looking for excuses to control the lives of others through government, this is as good of one as any.

Keith


Yup! That's pretty much exactly it. But my comment about "isms" was a little
pointed. I should have said something less confrontational like: "Be careful not
to confuse your isms". So I thought it might be better to let it just slide away.

I do that too often. I forget my diplomacy and just speak directly.

[Tharagor]

Most concerning about free-market economics is the lack of trade restrictions. Free trade throughout the world, assuming of course only in those nations that maintain the rule of law and guarantee protection of property rights even for foreigners, would result in diversion of wealth from developed nations to developing nations as companies scramble for the cheaper labor, raw goods, and new markets increasing the unemployment rate and decreasing the quality of life for citizens in developed nations.


Trade Economists widely believe that free trade is always beneficial. It is in every goddam textbook that you pick up anymore.

There are immense gains to be had in free trade. From Ricardo, to a Labor Specialization model, to what Hecksher and Ohlin told us out of the Stockholm school, to a Specific factors model, along with the vast amount of study that is currently being done in Academia, they all come to the conclusion that free trade is beneficial.

I feel truly sorry for the less educated who believe Ross Perot when he says he "can hear the sucking away of American jobs to Mexico" This is true, but notice something that you don't need to be an Econ major to figure out. Unemployment is still low and GDP has grown at a good rate. This shows us that when auto plants shut down, new jobs were employed here from companies like e-bay and goodle.

Which leads me to my next point, in International trade there is enough of a gain that those who are in the beneficial sector can compensate those in the losing sector and still retain some of their gains.

I know a few people are going to get on me on this one, probably a few libertarians, but I believe that trade assistance is a very good tool to use in our economy. It is much better than the myriad of hand-outs that are currently given out, and it helps hard workers transition into a new skill oriented job.

Also, the way the a country's growth affects it's terms of trade isn't as simple as you make it sound. If their growth is biased towards exports, it will indeed experience a decline in terms of trade. But now we are getting into a discussion of complex models that can be had at another time.

It gets a lot more complicated than this, but in short Free Trade is always beneficial. Always


How about rebutting the argument instead of parroting textbook concepts. Free trade is certainly beneficial in the long term, which is what economists tend to care about, but that "long term" is ill-defined at best and total free trade is certainly erratic.

[Tessy]

...notice something that you don't need to be an Econ major to figure out. Unemployment is still low and GDP has grown at a good rate.


Very many analysts are saying that there is widespread evidence that
figures being release are in fact juiced and that unemployment is actually
way up and the GDP is actually way down.

They site 10 or 15 different indicators such as salary rates and etc. that
show beyond any doubt that the numbers being published for CPI, GDP,
and etc. are pretty much total BS.

That seems to fit with the current set of crooks we have running the country
IMO so I guess it's true.

[4Reaganomics]

First, the only reason that I keep textbook concepts within my argument is because they are widely accepted. I need not engage in a bickering debate on how long "long run" truly is. Of course there will be holes in the beginning from free trade, but laissez-faire will do what it is proven to do, fill in the holes.

Secondly, the BEA follows SNA 93. I really can't comment on "juicing" the numbers, but I do know they are in complaince with international standards.