Capitalist competition is about increasing profits, not value for consumers.

[Alceste]

No...your OP's complaint was about capitalism in general.
Health care is just an easy target because it's so contentious here.
You still failed to make an argument that profit is even a problem.
And you still haven't answered my direct question.....
How well has it worked where profit was eliminated, ie, the state provided all?

You don't address inefficiencies of our system related to regulation, which far overshadow the 'cost' of profit.
So I'll skip addressing this because our differences stem from fundamental values.
You see profit as wrong. I see it as reward for effort, creativity, risk & return on capital investment.
We'll not reconcile these differences.


You're still cherry picking examples you like instead of dealing with the generality of your OP.

I'm telling you, non-profit, government funded health IS a direct answer to your question. In every western country but the US, the government pays for health care and it costs half as much. Your comment about this being due to over-regulation is nonsensical, since the LEAST regulated health care system in the Western world is also the most expensive and inefficient.

Nice straw man there with the "profit is evil" drivel. Are you going to give me all those examples of for profit services providing better value for consumers than comparable public services, or aren't you? The validity of your position kind of depends on your ability to do that.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh my goodness, a government designed video game with Celtic music...I can't even begin to imagine how horrible that game would be. I'm picturing the most boring video game ever designed, but with tons of glitches and programming errors. Although, Tetris did come out of the Soviet Union, and that's a fun game...so maybe you're on to something here.

Oh, no.....a government run music & video game industry would be so much better & more efficient.
Just ask Alcest....she'd love to do it all as a government employee.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm telling you, non-profit, government funded health IS a direct answer to your question.

Deflection.
I twice asked a simple question about where lack of profit is the law of the land, & how it fared.
If profit were eliminated from an economy, it would be illuminating to see the results.
So I ask again.
"How well has it worked where profit was eliminated, ie, the state provided all?"
To complain about health care here (without even any analysis) it is not an answer.

Nice straw man there with the "profit is evil" drivel.

.
That is a phony quote.
The straw man fallacy should only be invoked when it is understood & appropriately applied.
Moreover, your invented quote, which you falsely attributed to me, seems an accurate paraphrase of your own statement from the OP......

Profit is waste, not efficiency.

.

Are you going to give me all those examples of for profit services providing better value for consumers than comparable public services, or aren't you? The validity of your position kind of depends on your ability to do that.

.
Since I asked you for examples supporting your claim first (a couple times), it would be polite to answer me first.
Otherwise, I might get the false impression that you lack evidence, & so can only attack evidence of others.
That would just be bickering, & I've no interest in that.

 

[Yerda]

"How well has it worked where profit was eliminated, ie, the state provided all?"

Though it's an interesting question these aren't the only options.

Has profit ever been completely eliminated?

 

[Alceste]

Though it's an interesting question these aren't the only options.

Has profit ever been completely eliminated?

No, not that I know of. Even in subsistence cultures there is trade.

The argument is that profit is wasteful, not that it is wrong or should be eliminated. I'm questioning the cherished conservative myth of private sector efficiency, particularly in contrast with the public sector. I've never observed a single case that indicates there might be any basis in reality for this point of view, and nobody has been able to provide one yet. When I have seen for profit interests take control of public sector services, costs have risen and quality has deteriorated.

Which makes sense when you think about it. If you want to make money of something that was previously revenue-neutral, your only options are doing a shoddier job of it, paying the laborers less, or charging more for it. The private sector usually goes for all three.

 

[Alceste]

Deflection.
I twice asked a simple question about where lack of profit is the law of the land, & how it fared.
If profit were eliminated from an economy, it would be illuminating to see the results.
So I ask again.
"How well has it worked where profit was eliminated, ie, the state provided all?"
To complain about health care here (without even any analysis) it is not an answer.

.
That is a phony quote.
The straw man fallacy should only be invoked when it is understood & appropriately applied.
Moreover, your invented quote, which you falsely attributed to me, seems an accurate paraphrase of your own statement from the OP...... .
.
Since I asked you for examples supporting your claim first (a couple times), it would be polite to answer me first.
Otherwise, I might get the false impression that you lack evidence, & so can only attack evidence of others.
That would just be bickering, & I've no interest in that.

True, you claimed I am arguing "profit is wrong" not "profit is evil". Still a straw man, since that's not my position.

I still don't see how you are unable to recognize that my numerous examples of profit being wasteful actually are examples. So we might just be at an impasse here.

Or hang on a minute... It just occurred to me that you may be trying to manipulate me into defending your straw man. Is that the case? Just to reorient, I have not argued that profit is wrong, or that it should be eliminated.

 

[Wirey]

Though it's an interesting question these aren't the only options.

Has profit ever been completely eliminated?

Yes. USSR.

 

[Yerda]

Yes. USSR.

Ostensibly, it wasn't profit orientated. I think people profited, and some very handsomely, however.

 

[Yerda]

No, not that I know of. Even in subsistence cultures there is trade.

The argument is that profit is wasteful, not that it is wrong or should be eliminated. I'm questioning the cherished conservative myth of private sector efficiency, particularly in contrast with the public sector. I've never observed a single case that indicates there might be any basis in reality for this point of view, and nobody has been able to provide one yet. When I have seen for profit interests take control of public sector services, costs have risen and quality has deteriorated.

Which makes sense when you think about it. If you want to make money of something that was previously revenue-neutral, your only options are doing a shoddier job of it, paying the laborers less, or charging more for it. The private sector usually goes for all three.

This sums up my thoughts on the matter so tidily that if it weren't so neatly expressed I'd have wondered if I wrote it myself.

 

[Old Scratch]

Yes. USSR.

Ahhh, yes...My little ant farm. What a delicious disaster it was! No greater weapon against mankind is there than a system riddled with altruism,
great central power, sanctimony & alcoholism. Yes, long ago it fell, but to this day with pride at such carnage & failure I beam. Some wags & fools
may argue that profit is waste, that individual initiative is over-rated, & that freely operating businesses serve the customers not.....good this is!
Most effectively & artfully this year My faithful minions proselytize this malignant message....the dullards & drones above entrepreneurs elevating.
Especially proud am I of Obama's "you didn't build that" speech I scripted....such cunning, such craft, such subtlety, & such duplicitous messages!
The seeds of envy, entitlement & enmity were in fertile ground were sown. In the radiant light of my coy ploy you low creatures should bask!

 

[Sunstone]

Ostensibly, it wasn't profit orientated. I think people profited, and some very handsomely, however.

Peter F. Drucker argued that the USSR towards its end years was taking an effective profit of 25% although it didn't call it "profit". During the same time, Drucker estimated that profits in the West averaged about 10%. For that reason and others, he concluded that the USSR could not sustain its competition with the West.

The implication of Drucker's reasoning is that profits above a certain point are detrimental.

A certain level of profit seems necessary if a corporation is to have "seed corn" for future expansion and opportunity taking. But the doctrine that profits belong to the investors interferes with plowing profits back into research and development and other activities that would increase the viability of the business.

 

[Sunstone]

Yes. USSR.

The USSR eliminated profit in name only.

 

[idav]

The argument is that profit is wasteful, not that it is wrong or should be eliminated. I'm questioning the cherished conservative myth of private sector efficiency, particularly in contrast with the public sector. I've never observed a single case that indicates there might be any basis in reality for this point of view, and nobody has been able to provide one yet. When I have seen for profit interests take control of public sector services, costs have risen and quality has deteriorated.

Efficiency can boost profits without needing to raise the price of the product. Unfortunately business men will do both to get the most out of the profit margins. In theory if we increased efficiency you could lower costs and lower prices which would in turn increase value. Raising the prices is what decreases the value to the consumer when there hasn't been any improvement in efficiency or quality. We see this a lot as old technologies die out as new technologies become the norm at equal or less cost, the old technologies eventually end up costing more than the new more efficient stuff.

 

[otokage007]

I agree with OP, adding that businessmen live by sucking the blood of their workers and customers, not only their money

 

[Alceste]

Efficiency can boost profits without needing to raise the price of the product. Unfortunately business men will do both to get the most out of the profit margins. In theory if we increased efficiency you could lower costs and lower prices which would in turn increase value. Raising the prices is what decreases the value to the consumer when there hasn't been any improvement in efficiency or quality. We see this a lot as old technologies die out as new technologies become the norm at equal or less cost, the old technologies eventually end up costing more than the new more efficient stuff.

I still don't know what this mysterious quality of "efficiency" that the private sector ostensibly provides that the public sector ostensibly does not is supposed to be. I've worked in both sectors myself. There is more pressure to streamline processes to squeeze the maximum value out of every tax dollar in the public sector, in my experience. We even had a roving "process improvement team" whose only role was to seek out new ways to get the taxpayer more bang for her buck in every department. It's quite a different kind of pressure than finding new ways to make money, which usually involve hoodwinking or fleecing the public in some way.

I suspect "efficiency" is economic elite-speak for "new ways to stuff money in my pocket", just as "job creators" is a euphemism for the ridiculously rich.

I agree with OP, adding that businessmen live by sucking the blood of their workers and customers, not only their money

I wouldn't go that far - I think the private sector is perfect for trading in things nobody really needs. Plastic pumpkins. Microwave lasagna. Cars. iPods. Romance novels. Copyrighted Software. That sort of thing. But when it comes to the essential components of civilization: infrastructure, education, public security and health care (to which I would add affordable housing and food if I had my druthers), the public sector delivers much better value for dollars.

 

[freethinker44]

There seems to be a mantra in conservative circles that competition always drives for-profit businesses to reduce prices and increase value for consumers, resulting in efficiency. Is it true?

No, it's not true at all. I am working at Walmart (I know, I hate myself for it) while I am in college and the mark-up on some of the products, especially electronics, is well over 100%. That doesn't exactly scream good value. Capitalism doesn't drive businesses to reduce profit and increase value, it drives businesses to pay as little as they can for a product and charge as much as people are willing to pay. Even when thing are "on sale", they aren't really on sale. Most of the time they are just set on the shelf in a way that you think you are getting a deal. It's kind of sad and a little piece of my soul dies each time I go to work.

 

[Alceste]

No, it's not true at all. I am working at Walmart (I know, I hate myself for it) while I am in college and the mark-up on some of the products, especially electronics, is well over 100%. That doesn't exactly scream good value. Capitalism doesn't drive businesses to reduce profit and increase value, it drives businesses to pay as little as they can for a product and charge as much as people are willing to pay. Even when thing are "on sale", they aren't really on sale. Most of the time they are just set on the shelf in a way that you think you are getting a deal. It's kind of sad and a little piece of my soul dies each time I go to work.

I feel your pain. There are some things where competition is useful, though. The kind of crap they sell at Walmart is a pretty good example. Nobody needs any of that stuff, really. We could all stop going to Walmart tomorrow and never feel a pang of meaningful regret. People only go to Walmart because they want stuff they don't need and can't really afford, after they've watched a bit too much TV.

Let capitalists have all that stuff. I don't really care. I'll never work at a Walmart or shop at one myself, although I would be fine with regulating that employers (including Walmart) must pay a basic living wage to anyone over 18.

 

[freethinker44]

I would be fine with regulating that employers (including Walmart) must pay a basic living wage to anyone over 18.

I agree. It is truly amazing how much people expect someone who gets paid minimum wage to do. They expect us to give everything we can both physically and mentally, but they are only willing to give us the absolute minimum the law requires them to give. I don't know which is worse though, the customers or the store. Someone comes in there and pays 3.50 for something, they feel like they own your whole life and are damn sure going to make sure you know it.

Oh and FYI, complaining to managers about an employee is pointless. So many people complain about the dumbest crap, the management just acts like it's a big deal to shut them up, a lot of the time the employee doesn't know anyone complained.

I can talk for hours about working there, but I will just tell one story real quick while I am all worked up now. This guys comes in to the tire/lube section where I work, orders a rotation and balance and then goes up to the front desk to complain about the work that we haven't even done yet. As soon as we started pulling his tires off, my supervisor got called up to the service desk and by the time he got back we had it done. Then he told us we had to bring it back in and give him new lug nuts because he went up and complained.

I hate my job. I feel sorry for the other employees though, many are probably going to work there for a long time and they work so hard and get paid so little for it. I'm just passing through but for some, it's a career.

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree. It is truly amazing how much people expect someone who gets paid minimum wage to do. They expect us to give everything we can both physically and mentally, but they are only willing to give us the absolute minimum the law requires them to give. I don't know which is worse though, the customers or the store. Someone comes in there and pays 3.50 for something, they feel like they own your whole life and are damn sure going to make sure you know it.

Oh and FYI, complaining to managers about an employee is pointless. So many people complain about the dumbest crap, the management just acts like it's a big deal to shut them up, a lot of the time the employee doesn't know anyone complained.

I can talk for hours about working there, but I will just tell one story real quick while I am all worked up now. This guys comes in to the tire/lube section where I work, orders a rotation and balance and then goes up to the front desk to complain about the work that we haven't even done yet. As soon as we started pulling his tires off, my supervisor got called up to the service desk and by the time he got back we had it done. Then he told us we had to bring it back in and give him new lug nuts because he went up and complained.

I hate my job. I feel sorry for the other employees though, many are probably going to work there for a long time and they work so hard and get paid so little for it. I'm just passing through but for some, it's a career.

I had a neat trick to deal with employers I didn't like.
I quit, & went to some place better. Worked like a charm.

I have a theory about continually disgruntled workers. I notice that of the dozens of employees I've had over the years, that some had
a bad attitude about most things that I or their immediate supervisor did. And others liked the job, & I trained them to move ahead
...usually to a better company where they could advance. The unhappy worker must consider where the problem lies....from within, or
from without, or both.

 

[freethinker44]

I had a neat trick to deal with employers I didn't like.
I quit, & went to some place better. Worked like a charm.

I thought about that, but then I decided to find the worst job I could imagine that paid the least, you know, just because I like the challenge. :sarcastic

If everyone could just decide to get quit and find a better job, a lot of the places and services we all take for granted wouldn't exist. BTW, I am going to get a better job. I just need to finish college first.

The unhappy worker must consider where the problem lies....from within, or
from without, or both.

Definitely comes from the people who shop there. Not all, some people are very kind, but a lot are just plain cruel.