I think that a competitive market-based system for most things results in the best price for the end-consumer, but for certain critical needs such as medical and basic research, some govt/industry cooperation is warranted. This goes with the caveat that the markets are truly competitive with NO collusion/favoritism from government, which is a rarity these days.
For a hundred years after the country was founded, there were no ‘entitlement’ programs; the only aid that the founders felt the fed’l govt was obligated to was caring for veterans injured in the line of duty… and that certainly makes sense. As far as other forms of entitlements, whatever happened to families taking care of their own; why is it the govt’s responsibility to care for people when they have family to do it! Or local charities, which are MUCH more efficient than any government program will ever be… How about giving tax-payers and companies generous tax breaks for contributing to local charities to provide enough incentive to adequately fund the town’s social welfare needs. We also need to look at how the entitlement programs are structured… I’ve seen examples about how the rules are not structured to encourage one to become self-reliant, but promote dependency… dependency is just another way the control freaks (politicians) maintain control, and their power and elitist positions. I would have no problem if the programs ‘taught you how to fish’ in addition to giving you some fish for a limited period of time. Washington DC’s avg household income is now the highest in the country; surpassing the Silicon Valley of California… that should tell you all you need to know about politicians. We need to go back to one-term, citizen politicians; get rid of all lobbyists and corporate influence-peddlers in DC. From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 4:31 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 4:16 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint <zeropo...@charter.net> wrote: You simply can’t rely on one-sided references to make important decisions with these kinds of complex programs... Agreed. Thus, I find that reading the comment section helps to more accurately inform me; but that depends on whether knowledgeable folks are participating. Yes -- the comments can be very interesting. with the federal govt raiding the social security ‘fund’ and numerous other bloated and wasteful programs, one would have to be blind to think that the govt is going to do it more efficiently than a competitive system. I have no problem with the basic gist of this -- I am sure there is a lot of government bloat that can be trimmed. I guess I'm one for trying to sift the wheat from the chaff, rather than throw everything out, and for making use of bargaining power when it can be used to the advantage of the public good. Careful measures, carefully taken, enacted in light of positive experience in similar areas in other parts of the world. I am also not one to believe the a purely market based system is going to do an old person who has no money any good. He or she will suffer more than anyone else, because he or she will have no purchasing power, and a market based system will end up specializing in plastic surgery rather than helping him or her with some basic geriatric problem. A similar thing goes for the mentally retarded, the chronically ill, the physically disabled and those who, for whatever reason, are unlikely to ever be gainfully employed because they don't have the skills or ability to be employed. Whenever I hear of market-based solutions, I think of these people and the likelihood that they will be forever scrounging around for their basic needs. I think the market has a role to play, but I think we should also not be persuaded into thinking it is a magic bullet. I don't imagine you have been persuaded that it is, but I think a lot of people have. Everything in moderation. Eric
