Forgot about this one. Well, geez, I mean isn’t this what Dickens wrote about? I suppose I could try to dig it up in a history book, etc. But, I mean, what is your take on how things such as the labor movement and the modern welfare state grew up after the industrial revolution?!?
Here ya go, jshore. (Now how about coming over to lend me some support in the “Should we raise taxes?” thread, where a bunch of tax-resister types are trying to chew my ass off cuz they imagine I’m advocating a universal single-payer food-supply system? ;))
In the Shadow of the Poorhouse, by Michael B. Katz is a study of “welfare in the context of American social history.” Also see the bibliography for “The U.S. Welfare State, 1890–1996: A Cultural and Political Analysis”.
And yet I see no reason why good actors should be compelled to perform in a bad play. And, let’s face it. Socialized health care hasn’t won any Tony awards recently.
Sure, but your company isn’t necessarily representative of the whole of the economy, nor is your experience within your company necessarily representative of your company in general. My company is also inneficient in many ways. In its critical few objectives, it is remarkably efficient though.
**
Oh, I agree with you. We certainly must police these areas. But, like a policeman who sees a black man and assumes he’s a drug dealer, we are being unjust when we assume that a powerful corporation and wealthy individual is necessarily corrupt. And, we do this.
Actually, I got curious, and did a little more checking and thought. Externalities are complete bullshit. Things get priced based on the laws of supply and demand. That is how a market economy works.
Gas is $1.60 because that’s the price it should be. If you disagree, you are free to try and sell gas at a higher price, or use the futures market to make money off your assertion.
If you try to change that price based on nebulous externalities the world economy will eat you for lunch. It’s called a “one way bet.” A good example of why this is a bad idea might be England in the late 80’s when they attempted to assert that the Pound was worth more than everybody else thought it was. They got shellacked.
The “externalities” of gasoline actually get accounted for in different ways in today’s economy. You complain about rich SUV drivers spouting noxious fumes, but a rich guy poays more taxes, a percentage of which goes to environmental agencies and research, which in turn attempt to figure out new technologies and laws that will reduce air pollution. He also pays a lot of tax for that gas guzzler up front and every time he fills it. He also helps keep people employed in the gasoline, highway, and automotive industries by his consumption.
You would suggest that raising the price of gasoline would more accurately reflect its cost because of the externalities involved. In fact, raising the price of gasoline for this reason creates its own externalities in terms of lost revenue to various, industries and individuals involved in them, some of which will be pushed below their margins and recquire aid. Their quandary cascaded further through the economy, as they have less money to spend on other goods and services.
This is a very real and demonstrable phenomenom. One tampers with such complex interrelatedness only at great peril, and you do not try to adjust something which is finely balanced when you (as you admit,) cannot fully calculate what you are tampering with, or what value you are seeking.
Try to reset the timing on your car by hadnd, and you’ll get my drift.
No sirree externalities rate very high on the bullshitometer.
And, neither has privatized health care! And, my impression (admittedly not a scientific study) is that most people with firsthand experience of both prefer the former.
Actually, I see lots more evidence of people assuming that powerful corporations and wealthy individuals are Gods to be worshipped. And the fact that they are doing well is prima facia evidence of their virtue!
As for all of your stuff about gas and externalities, geez, I don’t know where to start. Even an U.S. Office of Technological Assessment study on the issue in transportation felt that externalities were a very real and serious issue. And, that study’s authors included a range of people from environmentalists to representatives of companies such as Ford! (I haven’t yet waded all the way through the study, but could send you the PDF file if you want.)
You have to account for the external costs directly with the use (or manufacture) of the product at issue or else it will still be overused relative to what it would be if the external costs were accounted for. (I.e., even if there is no NET transfer of money from one person to another as a result of the externalities, they are still a problem.) This is one of the points they make in that OTA study. Yes, yes, I know he already pays taxes and blah…blah…blah. The studies take that into account. And, yes, maybe subsidizing the oil and gas and automotive industries is something you want to do because you don’t really believe in market economics. But, if you really believe in market economics, you kinda gotta believe in how the assumptions work too. Maybe you should call your new theory where the price is automatically correct, independent of any externalities involved, “voodoo economics” (although that terms has been used before) because that is what it is.
P.S.–Thanks, kimstu, for the historical links!!!
I have to admit that the more I think about this “bad play” / “good actors” argument, the sillier it sounds. I mean, if these Swedes are so wonderful, why don’t we just start some wonderful immigration incentives to get them all to come here. If they can make a bad play look good, just think what they could do for a good play like ours!!! 
Well J, probably for the same reason you are unlikely to see Angela Lansbury cast as Sandra Dee in “Grease.”