Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
It is clear that government is more efficient in some respects and less efficient in others. My position is clear - increasing taxes for government to do things the private sector can do more efficiently is the incorrect decision. Those who knowingly advocate for that have an agenda, one that is contrary to what is in the best interest of society. You have been arguing against that, based on my interpretation of our exchanges. I don't know what to make of this most recent post.
|
My own position is that whether something should be done publicly or privately depends on the circumstances. It's difficult to universally accept that the private sector will always be the better option. I think that's a haphazard position to take. There are some things that I think should never be fully privatized. Some examples include water services, education, health care, military, and police. I admit there are political reasons for this. It's not a question of mere efficiency. If it were all about efficiency, perhaps there would be no such thing as government at all. Perhaps we'd all be living under dictatorships. Perhaps we'd all be a part of libertarian socialist societies. I think the latter would be the most apt.
That said, the proportion of Germany's problems handled by government initiatives vs. market capitalism should be based on what they know works and that is, overall, of the best benefit for the most number of Germans. Privatizing the shit out of the nation would be disruptive and would likely lead to widespread protest.
The solution, as is the case in most nations, is a balanced approach between what the government does and what is left for the market to serve.
Quote:
|
Right. Forgive me and my stupidity. I know that my point of views are imperfect. Given that I should never have assumed that another shares the same limitation.
|
Listen, you are the one who suggested that we can neatly call what you think digital and what I think analog. What the hell is that even supposed to mean? I think my suggestion of binary vs. comprehensive is more apt because you have yet to demonstrate that you can take a position beyond an either/or logic. You know, beyond the theoretical and into the real world.
Quote:
|
Like, people can't time the market???
|
This is a reference to a comment in an other thread. To be fair, people can time the market, and if you return to the thread in question, you will see that I clarified my position on the issue. People partake in market timing, but are taking huge risks when they do so, and it is often a losing game because it is based on predicting behavioural patterns of large groups of people.
But what I like about your question, rhetorical or no, is that it is another example proving that irony is not quite dead.
Quote:
|
How do you determine if government or the private sector is best suited to handle a social issue?
|
On a case-by-case basis, not an issue-by-issue basis. That, for starters.