Business IRL

I cannot pay the rent, so the owner must reduce it.

I cannot buy a house, so the goverment must make sellers sell cheaper.

Cos stuff logic that's why.

Whatever, lol

I cannot pay the rent, so the owner must reduce it.

 

I cannot buy a house, so the goverment must make sellers sell cheaper.

 

Cos stuff logic that's why.

 

Whatever, lol

This is literally what's happening in USA right now. Poors can't pay for their stuff? Tax the middle class more and make them pay for it.

Edited by Diskence, 04 August 2016 - 11:29 AM.

This is literally what's happening in USA right now. Poors can't pay for their stuff? Tax the middle class more and make them pay for it.

Taxes pay for transportation, infrastructure, healthcare, things that allow all citizens to become more efficient. This includes the labor force that businesses need, improved schools for more skilled workers and future entrepreneurs. While the tax code should be worked on, improved upon, a totally free market would be disastrous to a nation-state.

Taxes pay for transportation, infrastructure, healthcare, things that allow all citizens to become more efficient. This includes the labor force that businesses need, improved schools for more skilled workers and future entrepreneurs. While the tax code should be worked on, improved upon, a totally free market would be disastrous to a nation-state.

If only it actually worked that way in the US.

Taxes pay for transportation, infrastructure, healthcare, things that allow all citizens to become more efficient. This includes the labor force that businesses need, improved schools for more skilled workers and future entrepreneurs. While the tax code should be worked on, improved upon, a totally free market would be disastrous to a nation-state.

We must live in different country. 

This is literally what's happening in USA right now. Poors can't pay for their stuff? Tax the middle class more and make them pay for it.

Yes, it's like this all around the world, if they don't directly tax them, the incur in debt, which generates price inflation, which as silent form of tax, after all, they can always blame capitalists for increasing their prices. Yet people like how government give them "free" stuff. That's how dumb people are nowadays.

On the other hand, Ragnarok is not real life, and new items are always introduced in the tax shop, and old ones are always brought back, and comparing specutalors' losses (in which they will incur because they decided to bet that it would take a long time for the item to return) to taxes is not fair. Speculators will always make or lose money that way, and it's something natural. The greedier you are, the more you can gain... or lose, depending on circunstaces that are beyond your control.

And thats why a government shouldn't exist in first place, coz retarded things like that happens.

Can't tottally disagree with you. Problem is that a government WILL exist. So it's better to keep their roles and scope of action under strict and severe control instead of letting them do as they please, as people tend to do.

Taxes pay for transportation, infrastructure, healthcare, things that allow all citizens to become more efficient. This includes the labor force that businesses need, improved schools for more skilled workers and future entrepreneurs. While the tax code should be worked on, improved upon, a totally free market would be disastrous to a nation-state.

How about... I don't know... the people who USE these services pay for it as they use it, instead of FORCING everyone to pay for "public" services? Government is known to be less efficient than the private sector all around the world. I don't know why people think that it's more efficient for the whole society to let the government MONOPOLISE any industry at all, as if it was run by enlightened people or angels, or whatever, that have no personal interests at all, and no incentives to be better because there's no competition, and their jobs and income are always secured.

Oh, wait... this is not the politics forum that I usually tend to? It's the iRO boards? Oh, well... sorry, guys... just made a little mistake.

Edited by Kusanagisama, 04 August 2016 - 12:31 PM.

A very large portion of the budget is defense spending, while some say it isn't enough, factually the U.S. is the most powerful military in the world. Social security and Medicaid are also big, but this runs into issues, as it may run very high costs for people who aren't included in the work force at all, education and encouragement to live healthy lifestyles can reduce these costs in the long run, as well as cleaner environments free of toxins and such.

It is a little more complicated then, "Make America Great Again".

I could start a whole argument on why governments as they are are just imoral and wrong, but that would take quite some time and attention of mine during class, and not sure if i can word it properly in english :v I can recommend u some readings if interested tho

Like mises.org articles?

Like mises.org articles?

How about... I don't know... the people who USE these services pay for it as they use it, instead of FORCING everyone to pay for "public" services? Government is known to be less efficient than the private sector all around the world. I don't know why people think that it's more efficient for the whole society to let the government MONOPOLISE any industry at all, as if it was run by enlightened people or angels, or whatever, that have no personal interests at all, and no incentives to be better because there's no competition, and their jobs and income are always secured.

 

Oh, wait... this is not the politics forum that I usually tend to? It's the iRO boards? Oh, well... sorry, guys... just made a little mistake.

If you look up countries that have the greatest roads in the world, i'm sure most of them are payed for by taxes.

Healthcare overall without any government involvement is not efficient, as it does not meet normal supply and demand. Demand does not change much with healthcare, so price would rise to a very high rate without being controlled.

Saying the private sector is more efficient at "All Services" is wrong, as the firms are mainly profit driven, and do not consider the well being of a an entire nation a main goal.
 

I can recommend u some readings if interested tho

I'd be interested. Post them here, please.

I'd be interested. Post them here, please.

Yes private sector is better, and in profit driven there is competition, and with it comes better services and prices.

What about economies of scale? Which can be achieved with government services.

Correct. Considering how many people treat the necessities of life such as food, shelter, healthcare and so on it has long since been proven that the rest of society in the form of government needs to step in and make sure that as many citizens as possible have the opportunity to produce something useful to the rest of society. The malnourished, the homeless and the sick are a drain on the rest of the population therfore we should do what is necessary to minimize the number of people in those situations.

Food stamps to help people feed themselves, free apartments for the homeless so they can get back on their feet, socialized healthcare so that sick citizens can get treatment and get back to their jobs instead of losing them.

I'm glad you agree with me.

Coz a gorvenment totally is smarter than everyone else to dictate what and what not they should do with their hard worked money, so since ppl are stupid to use it to benefit themselves, they take it(taxes) to do it for them :v

Australia does have a more free market than most, but none of these countries have entirely free markets, at the very least the government is a mediator for certain sectors.

Edited by MrBrainFreeze, 04 August 2016 - 01:09 PM.

There are a few issues here to discuss.

First home prices:

There was a fool who once said you can make money by buying a home. He was a fool and all the fools he dragged a long with him paid the price in 2008. It's not the home thats valuable it's the land it's sitting on. On why rents and houses are getting more expensive there are 3 causes. 1) The original fool who thinks homes(not the $200k property) gain value. 2) Nimbies who do not allow new homes and apartment complexes to be built. Simple supply and demand. 3) The wrong types of homes are being built. Luxury apartments instead of studios.

For 2 distinct examples, take the 2 most expensive places to live(home price or apartment rent) in the US, San Francisco and San Diego. San Francisco has a decreasing population meaning demand should decrease. However prices are going up because nimbies are not letting new homes be built. San Diego has increasing demand and are building many new homes. However, they are not targeting the right market as all the new developments are luxury apartments and $900k homes.

Second on infrastructure development:

In the US they have a who uses it pays for it philosophy. There is a tax on gas to build new roads and a tax on mass transit to build new lines. In California there is a 60 cent per gallon tax which is enough to pay for pristine 16 lane highways. However, its mismanaged by the government and the funds allocated to the general fund instead of what it was mandated to be spent on. In New Jersey they don't tax gas and have super cheap gas, but their roads are not as sophisticated. 

The Fire department and police/sheriff are funded by property taxes. So the people who use these services pay for them.

Ambulances are a private industry and their cost is paid by the insurance company.

Utilities put down their own infrastructure, they typically work with other utilities to reduce the cost.

The Federal government actually pays for very little infrastructure development. The state governments use the remaining tax revenue on mostly education and prisons. As entities who put down infrastructure, it isn't the general revenue that pays for it, but the who uses it who pays for it.

Third on the efficiency of government and the private sector:

I like to think there are 3 types of health care. Immediate needs, long term needs, and optional services. Immediate needs are things like you were in a car accident and need to be rushed to a trauma center. They need... immediate attention. The costs here are variable depending on the ailment. As a whole the immediate needs represent a small chunk of healthcare costs. The bulk of healthcare costs are long term needs. Things that will need continuous treatment. Most of these costs are known, the treatments known, and it's capable to plan for. Then there are optional services like plastic surgery where once again the costs are known, the and treatments known.

I like to mention these 3 types of health care because it's important in explaining the fundamental difference in efficiency between the private sector and public sector. I consider most health care in the US to be public sector care despite the hospital and businesses being private due to the litany of regulations on this industry. Where something like plastic surgery has little regulations by comparison. Year over year, the cost of performing the same procedures and the same ailment goes up at a much higher rate than inflation. Something like an MRI scan that's decade old technology has increased in price ten fold. Yet at the same time the same procedure in plastic surgery has been going down year over year. This is the effect of new technology entering the market which allows the same procedure to be done by efficiently than before. Where a plastic surgeon can put it into affect immediately, a hospital needs to wait a decade or more.

Now if the US wanted a good example on how to approach a publicly funded health care. I think looking at Singapore would be the way to go.

When it comes to programs to help people make it, the federal government portions about 69% in some type of assistance program. These are Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Income security, and several pay roll based programs. That's $2.3 trillion. Naturally, they have a lot of measures in place to make sure these funds are properly spent. However, lets take that $2.3 trillion figure and divide it amongst the 242 million adults. That's $9.6k. If its just the 100 million receiving some type of benefits, its over $20k each. Having something like a minimum income and telling those on minimum income to pay for their own health services, that would be a better deal for both those receiving and giving. The main issue is that there are too many people policing it and making sure its only given to certain needy groups that the costs are mostly spent on administration.

Fourth on the Mises references:

Yes, I do look at Mises articles. I imagine graduate students of economics at George Mason University get an automatic F on their first day for their poor cost ratio judgment and not learning anything in the undergraduate program at George Mason University. I also watch ReasonTV and some of Hoover Institutes videos with Peter Robinson. His interview with Condelesa Rice was incredibly interesting and showed a completely different side to her that was not seen when she was Secretary of State.

Edited by Cleffy, 04 August 2016 - 06:35 PM.