Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 175

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/41716904-upheaval?ac=1&from_search=true

This has a good tldr on the historical situation in Chile, they're the only South American nation that has democratic/capitalistic values since a long, long time, without taking part in wars with the neighbor countries and was never ruled by socialists yet they face somewhat the same issues

On October 27 2019 14:40 Spitfiree wrote: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/41716904-upheaval?ac=1&from_search=true This has a good tldr on the historical situation in Chile, they're the only South American nation that has democratic/capitalistic values since a long, long time, without taking part in wars with the neighbor countries and was never ruled by socialists yet they face somewhat the same issues

We do not have "similar issues" with neighbor countries. The other stuff you say is mostly correct.

Venezuela, Nicaragua, Mexico, Argentina soon, and some other I'm forgetting are failed or close to failed states. Bolivia's president is a dictator by every metric other than loco's leftism after he went for re election ignoring his own referendum, and when lost altered the vote recount.

Peru could be similar to Chile despite the president's self coup I guess; wide spread disdain for politians breaking up social peace.

This is a political, moderate crisis at the moment, on development. Not an economical crisis. Major crime (burnt subway stations, supermarket lootings, blocked highways, etc) has been stop, regular, mostly peaceful protest are ongoing. Our economy has been hurt for sure, but nothing that can't be fixed.

Military control for security was declared no longer necesary by the president; as of tonight the military will stop patrolling the streets. No people died last night, in stark contrast with last friday (when military was called upon) where 10 people died on lootings in a single day.

Can't really comment on the book.

On October 27 2019 10:48 Liquid`Drone wrote: what are the reasons why the state can never produce at a similarly low cost as the private sector?

competition

The survival of the fittest nature of the free market leaves only the most efficient businesses alive, the ones with high production cost hence higher price/lower margins dissapear.

Sate run businesses are esentially monopolies, and as every monopoly they are inefficient since there is no threat of competition.


In México we had a state-run telecom monopoly TELMEX which was beyond atrocious, the telecom market was privatized, TELMEX was sold to Carlos Slim and new telecom companies quickly appeared and the fierce competition forced them to drop their prices dramatically overnight, internet speeds quickly went up, the quality of service is much better, I mean its obvious, a monooply has literally caputured 100% of the market, there is little incentive to improve in any way.

It's just that I have some contrary experiences, and that I think sometimes consumer-perceived efficiency is created in harmful ways. (What you might refer to as costs being externalized. A state has no incentive to externalize costs, at least not inside their country. Then again I guess Norway has externalized some costs outside Norway. ) I'm basically asking what are the ways competition makes companies slash costs to be efficient, and then asking 'is this something we always want'? Essentially, yes, I agree that the customer experience will often improve, but if the customer experience is improved on the back of deteriorating conditions for workers or environmental damage, is it worth it?

Also, my favorite company in Norway, as in, the one I enjoy buying stuff at the most, is the state run wine monopoly. Not because I drink so much, but because I feel they give the best customer service out of well.. every store I've been to. They have very knowledgeable staff (far beyond what your normal liquor store will have), great selection (far beyond what your normal liquor store will have), fantastic website that lets you order mostly whatever you want..
Like I've gone to various private alcohol stores abroad, and while they definitely win on price of bad wine or hard liquor (which is a tax thing), my perspective is they are (in general) way inferior.

As for telecommunications, that is one of two areas where I think privatization was great in Norway, too. (I also think it was good when we got more than one broadcasting channel for tv.) I mean I'm a bit negative towards a few individual people becoming 9digit millionaires off government built infrastructure, but it is definitely true that the customer experience was vastly improved. (We've also experienced privatization of electricity, waste removal, public transportation like railroads and busses, and in none of those cases did I perceive it as positive, and i don't think most other people did, either. )

privitzation of telecom in NZ turned it into a monopoly until government regulators came in and forced them to share the local loop with other companies, now they simply run it oligopolistically and agree to price gouge consumers at a certain rate. Efficiency is mostly used as an ideological concept, not an economic one. Like for example these private telecom companies make people hold on the phone for an hour playing shitty music, that's a way to cut down on staff and save money. It's efficient for business but places a massive cost on the consumer.

Most bussiness run in oligopolistic competition, meaning they don't really compete, but tacitly agree on a price. Usually it's set by an industry leader.

This whole argument 'POE's are run more efficienctly than SOE's', argument is nearly impossible to empirically test. In economics the argument is mostly based on thought experiments, and personal views on human psychology/work ethic. Like human beings are supposed to be more incentived to be more efficient in private business than state owned businesses, because of the competition they face. Well, those thought experiments don't translate well in reality. The culture of work ethic is different between countries from how they have developed.

You need to test it in a country with a good mix of ownership. Norway would be a good place to test for example, but there are other factors like cultural and political values. Norway is far more egalitarian, has little to no corruption, as compared to a place like India where it is rampant and makes the whole economy unable to function properly, so SOE's are a lot different in terms of efficiency between those two countries. A lot of whether it runs more efficiently or not comes down to what kind of industry they are in, as well. My own view is that monopolies like Facebook dont face any competition but the people who go to work there are turbo nerds trying to create the best product they can. They can't charge advertisers higher $ per view from their monopoly either, so these silicon valley companies can't exploit a monopoly in the way other companies like telecom can.

On October 28 2019 02:23 GoTuNk wrote: Show nested quote + On October 27 2019 14:40 Spitfiree wrote: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/41716904-upheaval?ac=1&from_search=true This has a good tldr on the historical situation in Chile, they're the only South American nation that has democratic/capitalistic values since a long, long time, without taking part in wars with the neighbor countries and was never ruled by socialists yet they face somewhat the same issues We do not have "similar issues" with neighbor countries. The other stuff you say is mostly correct. .

By similar, i mean more in terms of :

- was led by a brutal dictator and the military
- the freedom of people was limited
- large discrepancy between poor and rich causing for socialism to have roots prior to Pinochet
- was financed by the US to stop socialism

Again, from what I understand a very large amount of Chileans still believe Pinochet was a good guy and his atrocities are not taught in school (e.g. Germany found a solution to cope with their past - they educate all of their children on what nazism is and how guilty the nation is)

It's obvious you guys are quite different from any other South American nation though, since I believe you never actually had a massive financial crisis which is a hobby of the rest of South America

Chile had a major financial crisis in 1982, pinochet sacked all his chicago boys and nationalized some banks.

I havn't really looked at latin american economies, but they rode a commodity boom in the mid-2000's, this is part of why the leftist politicians during that time were successful. The problem is that latin american economies are largely based on raw material extraction, if they wanted to become industralized rich nations they should have looked at what some of the other countries did, like south korea, and taiwan. The way they would become rich would be by abandoning their dependency on extraction and pursuing industralization, and this would prevent them from having as many economic crisis's as well, im mainly looking at venezeula since how well their economy does is basically gambling on the price of oil. The pink tide politicians didn't really change the economies in any fundamental way, mostly they just changed ownership, and they did redistribute some of the wealth to some extent. Well, it's a shame since you would need a leftist politician to do what the asian economies did, you need a pretty heavy state presence in an economy for it to industrialize. The chicago boy type economists follow a principle in international trade theory called comparitive advantage, which basically says it's efficient for a country to do what it's best at. Well, if exporting oil is what your best at, it just means you will continue to do it.

On October 28 2019 08:39 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On October 28 2019 02:23 GoTuNk wrote:   On October 27 2019 14:40 Spitfiree wrote: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/41716904-upheaval?ac=1&from_search=true This has a good tldr on the historical situation in Chile, they're the only South American nation that has democratic/capitalistic values since a long, long time, without taking part in wars with the neighbor countries and was never ruled by socialists yet they face somewhat the same issues We do not have "similar issues" with neighbor countries. The other stuff you say is mostly correct. . By similar, i mean more in terms of : - was led by a brutal dictator and the military - the freedom of people was limited - large discrepancy between poor and rich causing for socialism to have roots prior to Pinochet - was financed by the US to stop socialism Again, from what I understand a very large amount of Chileans still believe Pinochet was a good guy and his atrocities are not taught in school (e.g. Germany found a solution to cope with their past - they educate all of their children on what nazism is and how guilty the nation is) It's obvious you guys are quite different from any other South American nation though, since I believe you never actually had a massive financial crisis which is a hobby of the rest of South America

I agree then.
The referendum on Pinochet's continuation was 58% against ,42% in favor. I would put his support at 20-25% now.
This is a simplistic view though. Almost no one agrees with human rights violations or supports/condemns him 100%; his "supporters" value things like stopping comunism and bread lines (look at Venezuela), economical reforms that reduced poverty (40% to 8%) and a peaceful transition to democracy.
After defeat free elections where held, and he left power willingly which is unique for dictators.
I think your perception of chilean education is wrong, his regime is presented in a strong negative light and I do not know a single person who is not aware of detained executed people during it.

On October 28 2019 08:28 Stroggoz wrote: privitzation of telecom in NZ turned it into a monopoly until government regulators came in and forced them to share the local loop with other companies, now they simply run it oligopolistically and agree to price gouge consumers at a certain rate. Efficiency is mostly used as an ideological concept, not an economic one. Like for example these private telecom companies make people hold on the phone for an hour playing shitty music, that's a way to cut down on staff and save money. It's efficient for business but places a massive cost on the consumer. Most bussiness run in oligopolistic competition, meaning they don't really compete, but tacitly agree on a price. Usually it's set by an industry leader. This whole argument 'POE's are run more efficienctly than SOE's', argument is nearly impossible to empirically test. In economics the argument is mostly based on thought experiments, and personal views on human psychology/work ethic. Like human beings are supposed to be more incentived to be more efficient in private business than state owned businesses, because of the competition they face. Well, those thought experiments don't translate well in reality. The culture of work ethic is different between countries from how they have developed. You need to test it in a country with a good mix of ownership. Norway would be a good place to test for example, but there are other factors like cultural and political values. Norway is far more egalitarian, has little to no corruption, as compared to a place like India where it is rampant and makes the whole economy unable to function properly, so SOE's are a lot different in terms of efficiency between those two countries. A lot of whether it runs more efficiently or not comes down to what kind of industry they are in, as well. My own view is that monopolies like Facebook dont face any competition but the people who go to work there are turbo nerds trying to create the best product they can. They can't charge advertisers higher $ per view from their monopoly either, so these silicon valley companies can't exploit a monopoly in the way other companies like telecom can.

The govt made Telecom NZ a monopoly way before it was privatised. The privatisation of Telecom NZ and the deregulation of the Telecommunications industry in the 1988 and 1989 made it possible for other players to enter the market, Such as Clear Communications, Telstra and later Vodafone NZ. The problem with Telecom/Spark NZ and why they have so much monopoly up until 2008 was 100% because of the govt as they owned all the copper lines and NO competition was allowed before.

On October 28 2019 07:31 Liquid`Drone wrote: It's just that I have some contrary experiences, and that I think sometimes consumer-perceived efficiency is created in harmful ways. (What you might refer to as costs being externalized. A state has no incentive to externalize costs, at least not inside their country. Then again I guess Norway has externalized some costs outside Norway. ) I'm basically asking what are the ways competition makes companies slash costs to be efficient, and then asking 'is this something we always want'? Essentially, yes, I agree that the customer experience will often improve, but if the customer experience is improved on the back of deteriorating conditions for workers or environmental damage, is it worth it? Also, my favorite company in Norway, as in, the one I enjoy buying stuff at the most, is the state run wine monopoly. Not because I drink so much, but because I feel they give the best customer service out of well.. every store I've been to. They have very knowledgeable staff (far beyond what your normal liquor store will have), great selection (far beyond what your normal liquor store will have), fantastic website that lets you order mostly whatever you want.. Like I've gone to various private alcohol stores abroad, and while they definitely win on price of bad wine or hard liquor (which is a tax thing), my perspective is they are (in general) way inferior. As for telecommunications, that is one of two areas where I think privatization was great in Norway, too. (I also think it was good when we got more than one broadcasting channel for tv.) I mean I'm a bit negative towards a few individual people becoming 9digit millionaires off government built infrastructure, but it is definitely true that the customer experience was vastly improved. (We've also experienced privatization of electricity, waste removal, public transportation like railroads and busses, and in none of those cases did I perceive it as positive, and i don't think most other people did, either. )

Thats why I've been very specific and talked about efficiency and produciton costs, it doesn't necesarely mean better.

If we want the cheapest insulin and healthcare possible, free market healthcare is without a doubt the way to go, that is factual. Now it bring the problem of not everybody having access directly to it, and that is a big problem so you can argue that socialized is better, what you can't say is that a $540 insulin vial is the result of capitalism, its exactly the contrary, its the result of a corrupted heavily regulated market.

Many Utilities are intuitively better handled by the state, like public transportation can be nightmarishly complex since companies have to share infrastructure and things like firemen or police can lead to big issues if its handled privately, and thats the kind of discussion I would like to have, not one where expensive insuline is the result of "greed", that's nothing but moral grandstanding about class warfare designed to manipulate idiots.

On October 28 2019 08:28 Stroggoz wrote: privitzation of telecom in NZ turned it into a monopoly until government regulators came in and forced them to share the local loop with other companies, now they simply run it oligopolistically and agree to price gouge consumers at a certain rate. Efficiency is mostly used as an ideological concept, not an economic one. Like for example these private telecom companies make people hold on the phone for an hour playing shitty music, that's a way to cut down on staff and save money. It's efficient for business but places a massive cost on the consumer. Most bussiness run in oligopolistic competition, meaning they don't really compete, but tacitly agree on a price. Usually it's set by an industry leader. This whole argument 'POE's are run more efficienctly than SOE's', argument is nearly impossible to empirically test. In economics the argument is mostly based on thought experiments, and personal views on human psychology/work ethic. Like human beings are supposed to be more incentived to be more efficient in private business than state owned businesses, because of the competition they face. Well, those thought experiments don't translate well in reality. The culture of work ethic is different between countries from how they have developed. You need to test it in a country with a good mix of ownership. Norway would be a good place to test for example, but there are other factors like cultural and political values. Norway is far more egalitarian, has little to no corruption, as compared to a place like India where it is rampant and makes the whole economy unable to function properly, so SOE's are a lot different in terms of efficiency between those two countries. A lot of whether it runs more efficiently or not comes down to what kind of industry they are in, as well. My own view is that monopolies like Facebook dont face any competition but the people who go to work there are turbo nerds trying to create the best product they can. They can't charge advertisers higher $ per view from their monopoly either, so these silicon valley companies can't exploit a monopoly in the way other companies like telecom can.

Usually privatizations are profoundly corrupt, there are billions involved and there's gonna be corruptoin and as Drone said it usually crates billionares our of nowhere, its fucking bullshit it should be done with extreme care, everytime something like this happens wealth inequality takes a big hit, another reason why the state shouldnt venture into any markets it isn't already in.

Strongly disagree with most businesses running in oligoplstic competition, its so difficult to set up price between an entire industry especially in a globalized world, there are very few induestries that have a massively big barrier of entry that require billions in infrastructure like oil, telecom and even those can't really set up a fixed price unless they use the state, which is what happens in almost every example you can think of.

Funny thing is that almost every state has anti-trust laws, yet the bigger the state the bigger the corporations, the left's position is that we need more regulation and more state control to smash monopolies yet the evidence is that the opposite happens, monopolies do not fall with state intervention but through their own inefficiencies due to their size in the free market, but if you wanna discuss simple enforcable regulations that break up monopolies then I'm all for it, what I'm not for is an army of bureacrats.

yeah, i mean anti-trust laws are very conservatively enforced, to say the least. Why do you oppose the state so much if your opposed to beuracies. They do exist in corporations as well you know. David Graeber's done research on that. Many state institutions are now structured quite similar to corporations, with the only difference being ownership.

It's very strange that think businesses are not highly oligopolistic, because in economic theory if there is perfect competition, no company makes profit, and corporate profits have been going way up, which would lead one to beleive there is either monopoly or oligopoly. What else could it be? There are studies, of the fortune 500 as a whole and of individual industries. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answ...some-current-examples-oligopolies.asp

It really isn't that hard to collude in oligopolistic competition. poker companies tacitly agree on zero rakeback deals for example. well there is some competition to that, but take 10 years ago everyone offered rakeback deals. but it has trended towards that way. Supermarket companies collude on prices, electricity companies collude on price. It's very standard.

And thats what I've been saying that corporations are inefficient as states which is the reason why they can't compete despise their tools like capital and they are totally reliant of the state to hold their domination of a market.

Perhaps I didn't explain myself many businesses are oligopolistic but rarely through price fixing which requires direct cooperation and most markets aren't suited for oligopoly, a few that require multibillion investment in infrastructure do, Poker sites aren't colluding what evidence do you have of this? they are simply adapting to a changing market, the deposits amounts have fallen, they also realized that regs (churners as they call us) aren't the ones bringing in the money so they cater to attract deposits rather than play volume among many other reasons, I think you are totally off on this one.

I might be wrong there might be monopolies that can thrive even in the abscence of a state so I'm willing to condece the necessity of some kind of real anti-trust laws, but lets not pretend that a bigger lelft wing government would do that since its clear that doesn't work it would require a very simple and spartan entity to do such job.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/28/syria-us-troops-oil-fields-isis


Damn good thing they withdrew from Syria

Trump is such a piece of trash. Doesn't he realize that after what he pulled now all US soldiers are in direct threat from absolutely everyone in that country including Kurds

Elizaben Warren raised her purposal o f 2% wealth tax to 6% and Bernie Sanders said he wans to impose a national rent control and unlike Warren he has an actual shot at winning, pair of fucking retarded maniacs.

short the US economy

.. For households worth between $50 million and 1 billion, and higher % for households worth more than a billion.

Sounds good to me, imo nobody should have $50 mill and most certainly not 1 billion.

im also very pissed that warren is trying to impose a very small tax on billionaires, the injustice is so great and as we have seen from bush/trumps tax cuts, supply side economics works brilliantly.

'Since 1989, the wealthiest 1% of Americans have added $21 trillion to their combined net worths, while the poorest 50% of Americans have seen their combined net worths drop $900 billion, an analysis of Fed data reported in New York Magazine found.'

reversing and undoing that would be a great thing for americans. 'capitalism' does not make that happen on its own.

I mean its so ridiculous how many changes the rich have made over the past 40 years, they've carefully planned an economy with many many policies designed to enrich them, which has resulted in the data your citing. and elizabeth warren comes along with a policy to undo about less than 0.1% of what the rich have done over the neoliberal era, and apparently this makes her a 'fucking retard'. I mean that's the standard bougousie reaction i guess.

ive yet to see a single good justification on why anyone should have as much as 50million$ or any number close to that.

rent control in the US sounds quite reasonable tbh depending on the implementation

that being said, its probably gonna be a fiesta implementation which will backfire