Like I said, you are definitely confusing things: socialism/communism/modern China/NK-style dictatorships.
All states provide services, or they wouldn't exist.
Who do you think is going to develop technology without market solutions in place?
There was an HN article recently about Wifi, which was developed by Australian government researchers at a famous research institution now being dismantled on the same faulty capitalist/neocolonialist reasoning you are peddling. The internet, wifi... many interesting modern developments have been government funded.
It's the difference between SpaceX and NASA: both are funded through taxpayers, but SpaceX has competitive pressure to provide better services at a better price.
No, SpaceX and NASA are very different. SpaceX is a for-profit business, whereas NASA is a national (some would say international) research institution. For example, a friend of mine from Australia is currently doing an internship at NASA's JPL facility in the field of applied chemical geology with a pure research goal.
China [...] growth has largely come through increased liberalization of the economy
You are incorrect. There is liberalization, but effectively the government still runs all the roads, train networks, airports, communications infrastructure, education and media.
hoarding?
You know, medicine or food or real estate or whatnot. We were not talking about cars.
We have abundant evidence...
{{citation-needed}}
What in your view allows a government service to provide these benefits (by using taxpayer money to provision them) while giving people the money to buy those services directly would not?
If I give someone $2 a week, even if there are 20,000 people in a town, how long will it take them to coherently organize savings amongst themselves build a $2M road to the provincial capital? Some of them are leaving, some of them are old, some of them ride bicycles, some of them don't drive, others prefer the train, there are rumours of a new train line. Sometimes a decision just needs to be made. And if every village builds a direct road to the capital, is that really a desirable network topology? No. There are concerns at play that those affected cannot or will not have the time to research and execute. Whereas, history teaches us that a commercial actor, which you propose, would by definition cut nearly all available corners to prioritize profit, whilst working to establish an effective (explicit or implicit) monopoly on the sector, leaving portions of the people underserved. Oh, and they'd be tollways.
----- edit reply to below ----
I can't imagine the nightmare that a government-provisioned Google would be, for example.
Straw man.
the service they provide (space exploration) is largely identical.
Did you read my comment? It's chalk and cheese.
the market is more capitalist than it was 50 years ago
Instead of discussing the point you make a tangential point then essentially falsely assert that because the market is more capitalist all the good stuff comes from capitalism. Having a discussion with you is completely insane.
You think under UBI people would use their limited income to hoard medicine?
I was discussing the relative benefits of a service-based model.
The idea that some central planner knows better than people what they need is the height of arrogance.
You are conflating providing essential services with providing everything. The scope was: food/water, shelter, transportation, health care, electricity/information.
Capitalism does not automatically imply corruption or inefficiency.
No, but it implies a profit motive which usually suggests a few things, the foremost being chiefly crap service for everyone in low population density areas that isn't easily serviced.
The Japanese rail system...
... is terrible unless you want to get from a major town to a major town. I recently spent 2 days stuck there trying to get between point A and point B along the coast. Why? As you say...
> All states provide services, or they wouldn't exist.
Sure. There are vast differences in the amount of services provided, from minimalist contract enforcement all the way up to full government control of everything in the economy.
> The internet, wifi... many interesting modern developments have been government funded.
Yes, and they generally only saw consumer adoption once for-profit businesses got involved. I can't imagine the nightmare that a government-provisioned Google would be, for example.
> No, SpaceX and NASA are very different. SpaceX is a for-profit business
They operate differently, yes. But the service they provide (space exploration) is largely identical. By all accounts, SpaceX has been much more successful at that and has dramatically lowered the cost of launches.
> You are incorrect.
No, I'm not. I have studied Chinese history in depth and have visited many times. I recognize that many services are government provisioned, but that doesn't change the reality that the market is more capitalist than it was 50 years ago.
> You know, medicine or food or real estate or whatnot. We were not talking about cars.
You think under UBI people would use their limited income to hoard medicine?
The idea that some central planner knows better than people what they need is the height of arrogance.
Where did I argue that all services should be privately provisioned? It probably makes sense for governments to build roads, since that's something that really does benefit from central planning. Even for things which I think the government should do (ex. universal health care) I think it should do it through a free market (ie. provide a national insurance company which competes directly with private insurance).
Capitalism does not automatically imply corruption or inefficiency. The Japanese rail system, for example, is admired around the world. Yet it's entirely privatized.
I agree with you on some of those things. For instance, it would probably be difficult to develop a road network that spans across groups of people without some planning and coordination between those people's governments. And, this is where governance does help.
But, even though governments may identify and enumerate the collective requirements of where those roads will be (for better or worse), it would be hard to imagine the government being efficient or innovative at executing the work.
If people want to coordinate their collective goals together, that can be effective, and I'm a supportive of that. But, that's a huge difference from having an external group of people dictating what those goals should be and how they should be achieved.
All states provide services, or they wouldn't exist.
Who do you think is going to develop technology without market solutions in place?
There was an HN article recently about Wifi, which was developed by Australian government researchers at a famous research institution now being dismantled on the same faulty capitalist/neocolonialist reasoning you are peddling. The internet, wifi... many interesting modern developments have been government funded.
It's the difference between SpaceX and NASA: both are funded through taxpayers, but SpaceX has competitive pressure to provide better services at a better price.
No, SpaceX and NASA are very different. SpaceX is a for-profit business, whereas NASA is a national (some would say international) research institution. For example, a friend of mine from Australia is currently doing an internship at NASA's JPL facility in the field of applied chemical geology with a pure research goal.
China [...] growth has largely come through increased liberalization of the economy
You are incorrect. There is liberalization, but effectively the government still runs all the roads, train networks, airports, communications infrastructure, education and media.
hoarding?
You know, medicine or food or real estate or whatnot. We were not talking about cars.
We have abundant evidence...
{{citation-needed}}
What in your view allows a government service to provide these benefits (by using taxpayer money to provision them) while giving people the money to buy those services directly would not?
If I give someone $2 a week, even if there are 20,000 people in a town, how long will it take them to coherently organize savings amongst themselves build a $2M road to the provincial capital? Some of them are leaving, some of them are old, some of them ride bicycles, some of them don't drive, others prefer the train, there are rumours of a new train line. Sometimes a decision just needs to be made. And if every village builds a direct road to the capital, is that really a desirable network topology? No. There are concerns at play that those affected cannot or will not have the time to research and execute. Whereas, history teaches us that a commercial actor, which you propose, would by definition cut nearly all available corners to prioritize profit, whilst working to establish an effective (explicit or implicit) monopoly on the sector, leaving portions of the people underserved. Oh, and they'd be tollways.
----- edit reply to below ----
I can't imagine the nightmare that a government-provisioned Google would be, for example.
Straw man.
the service they provide (space exploration) is largely identical.
Did you read my comment? It's chalk and cheese.
the market is more capitalist than it was 50 years ago
Instead of discussing the point you make a tangential point then essentially falsely assert that because the market is more capitalist all the good stuff comes from capitalism. Having a discussion with you is completely insane.
You think under UBI people would use their limited income to hoard medicine?
I was discussing the relative benefits of a service-based model.
The idea that some central planner knows better than people what they need is the height of arrogance.
You are conflating providing essential services with providing everything. The scope was: food/water, shelter, transportation, health care, electricity/information.
Capitalism does not automatically imply corruption or inefficiency.
No, but it implies a profit motive which usually suggests a few things, the foremost being chiefly crap service for everyone in low population density areas that isn't easily serviced.
The Japanese rail system...
... is terrible unless you want to get from a major town to a major town. I recently spent 2 days stuck there trying to get between point A and point B along the coast. Why? As you say...
it's entirely privatized