The Commies Finally Get It!

[Christians4LessGvt]

"No matter how many state-owned companies we have,
modernization will happen, above all, through private business.
And only if there is competition"

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev - June 18, 2010

[Michael Tee]

LOL.  In another thread, CU4, you were complaining about "not getting the full picture."

Well for sure you and Medvedev don't get the full picture here either.  Sure, "modernization" will best be achieved through private enterprise and competition.  That's a no-brainer that even Communists will readily admit.

What comes along with private enterprise and competition are:  unemployment; poverty; homelessness; exploitation of labour; inequality; crime.

The question that Medvedev and you never ask, of course, is how much modernization is required of any society and once a certain level of modernization is reached, which sector or sectors of the population exactly benefits from further increases in modernization.

IMHO, the benefits of modernization are already very unequally distributed.  The benefits of further modernization will be even more unequally distributed.  IMHO, we already have the technology to extend the benefits of a decent life to every human being on this planet.  The problem is not to achieve further modernization, the problem is to achieve better (i.e., more equitable) distribution.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Competition encourages modernization. Competition is not, however, the sole product of private enterprise.
The US Postal Service has modernized due to competition. And the current problems that are having is because (a) they are forced by Congress to deliver junk mail at below cost, and (b) because in competing with internet banking and billing, they are competing with a free service.

I agree that wealth needs to be more equitably distributed and that this will benefit nearly everyone. But competition in efficiency and price is required for modernization.

[kimba1]

but not always the case.
it  also means cutting corners to the point a business may cause harm.

ex. peanut butter

[BT]

I agree that wealth needs to be more equitably distributed and that this will benefit nearly everyone.

How?

[Michael Tee]

<<How?>>

Communism

[BT]

How does redistribution benefit everyone?

[Michael Tee]

I don't think it benefits everyone.  It wouldn't even benefit me.  It would benefit the have-nots, who probably outnumber the haves by a margin of 1,000 to one.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I was not referring to Communism, I was referring to a greater equality such as one sees in Scandinavia and the Netherlands. Even in the US, Hawaii and Utah have a higher degree of equality among their citizens than Mississippi, Alabama, or West Virginia, and people are better educated, less likely to be obese, and live longer.

[BT]

It would benefit the have-nots, who probably outnumber the haves by a margin of 1,000 to one.

And this is good reason to introduce redistributive policy because......?

[Michael Tee]

because I believe that governments should strive for the greatest good for the greatest number.

Why try to make everyone happy?  No one can answer that.  Why try to save a drowning child you don't even know?  Why help up some stranger who stumbled in the street?  There is no logical answer for that.  If you don't give a shit, you don't give a shit.  Period.  End of story.

People like me like to see greater happiness and less misery in the world.  People like you don't give a shit.  I can't account for it, but personally I think it has something to do with the way you were brought up as a child.  I think you can divide the world into two groups, those who give a shit and those who don't.  I can't tell ya why I give a shit but I am glad I do and I feel sorry for anyone who does not.  Let's just say I'm one of the good guys and you're one of the bad guys, and leave it at that.

[BT]

if you want to make the world better for the greater good have at it. But what gives you the right to force me to go along with your generosity?

[Stray Pooch]

Competition encourages modernization. Competition is not, however, the sole product of private enterprise.
The US Postal Service has modernized due to competition. And the current problems that are having is because (a) they are forced by Congress to deliver junk mail at below cost, and (b) because in competing with internet banking and billing, they are competing with a free service.

Do you realize that you just said that the reason a government agency is in trouble is because it is receiving too much interference from the government and it can't compete with for-profit private concerns that are using a more modern business model?

So that's basically two good reasons to choose the private sector over the public.

Did I miss something or did the time-space continuum just shiver?

[Michael Tee]

<<if you want to make the world better for the greater good have at it. But what gives you the right to force me to go along with your generosity?>>

Good question.  It's the right thing to do.  It's wrong for some people to live in mansions while others are homeless, to eat luxuriously while others starve.  I don't know exactly why but I know that what I see just can't be right.  It has to change.  Ideally, voluntarily, but change by any means necessary.

[BT]

I don't know exactly why

Me either. Thus my question.