Page 27 of 27 FirstFirst ...
17
25
26
27
  1. #521
    Scarab Lord bergmann620's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Stow, Ohio
    Posts
    4,402
    Quote Originally Posted by Nexx226 View Post
    Typically things like this become cheaper per person as the population grows.
    To a point. When managing teams of humans, we've found that any one person is only capable of managing at most 7 others before they begin to become less effective. At some point, you have to increase the layers in a bureaucracy, and then you begin to introduce more and more inefficiency. There is likely a sweet spot, where there is more efficiency than managing one person at a time, but increasing the number of people beyond that would lead to too many layers of people.
    indignantgoat.com/
    XBL: Indignant Goat | BattleTag: IndiGoat#1288 | SteamID: Indignant Goat[/B]

  2. #522
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrysia View Post
    You contradicted yourself in the first paragraph. First you state that the difference in state economies has no impact on the degree to which federal power is necessary to manage the state, then go on to say that the economic prosperity of the Scandinavian countries is at least partially based on the homogeneous nature of their economies. Either homogeneous economies are inherently more stable, requiring less maintenance and thus a smaller government, or they aren't.
    I said nothing of the sort. I said exactly what is there. He claimed that because states were very different early on in US history, it was easier for local rather than federal powers to "manage" them. There is no evidence to support this.

    I then said that Scandinavian nations are economically similar to many states in the US. They do not have broadly diverse economies because they have a smaller population that cannot support the diverse economies of larger nations. They also provide extensive social wealth fare that is, according to those that champion it, better than that provided by the US. I did not say, as you claim that "the economic prosperity of the Scandinavian countries is at least partially based on the homogeneous nature of their economies." I didn't comment on their prosperity at all, but rather on their welfare.

  3. #523
    Quote Originally Posted by bergmann620 View Post
    To a point. When managing teams of humans, we've found that any one person is only capable of managing at most 7 others before they begin to become less effective. At some point, you have to increase the layers in a bureaucracy, and then you begin to introduce more and more inefficiency. There is likely a sweet spot, where there is more efficiency than managing one person at a time, but increasing the number of people beyond that would lead to too many layers of people.
    That's managing people though, not providing a service to people. For example, it's certainly cheaper for the IRS to collect the revenue to manage these programs, than for every state to collect individually.

  4. #524
    Quote Originally Posted by JacquesPierre View Post
    I said nothing of the sort. I said exactly what is there. He claimed that because states were very different early on in US history, it was easier for local rather than federal powers to "manage" them. There is no evidence to support this.

    I then said that Scandinavian nations are economically similar to many states in the US. They do not have broadly diverse economies because they have a smaller population that cannot support the diverse economies of larger nations. They also provide extensive social wealth fare that is, according to those that champion it, better than that provided by the US. I did not say, as you claim that "the economic prosperity of the Scandinavian countries is at least partially based on the homogeneous nature of their economies." I didn't comment on their prosperity at all, but rather on their welfare.
    Nooooo, he claimed the precise opposite. Originally, the economies of the US states were very homogeneous. The problems that gave rise to the Civil War began as they began to differentiate.

    Welfare availability is directly related to prosperity.

    3DS Friend Code: 0146-9205-4817. Could show as either Chris or Chrysia.

  5. #525
    Quote Originally Posted by JacquesPierre View Post
    I said nothing of the sort. I said exactly what is there. He claimed that because states were very different early on in US history, it was easier for local rather than federal powers to "manage" them. There is no evidence to support this.
    I explained thoroughly why this is the case, and it was the case later, not at first. You seem to think ignoring an argument and then declaring that you are right is some kind of brilliant counter to anything that is inconvenient for you. That's not how debate actually works.

    I then said that Scandinavian nations are economically similar to many states in the US. They do not have broadly diverse economies because they have a smaller population that cannot support the diverse economies of larger nations. They also provide extensive social wealth fare that is, according to those that champion it, better than that provided by the US. I did not say, as you claim that "the economic prosperity of the Scandinavian countries is at least partially based on the homogeneous nature of their economies." I didn't comment on their prosperity at all, but rather on their welfare.
    They aren't similar to states. States don't do a large number of things a central Scandinavian government does, like manage currency and enact trade deals.

  6. #526
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,895
    Quote Originally Posted by JacquesPierre View Post
    No, they are not. You really think monitoring and administering money transfers and health care are easier to do with 350 million people than with 7 million? I don't think you actually know what economies of scale are...
    http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/...iesofscale.asp

    It would really help if I didn't have to link basic definitions of widely-understood terms.

    Yes, the per-capita costs of handling things like health care and social support networks are lower when handling them for a population of 350 million, rather than for 7 million. That's exactly what an economy of scale means.

    Yes, the absolute costs are higher, but not the per-capita, which is what's important if you're making an honest comparison.


  7. #527
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    That's how the Constitution works, yeah. What's valid is a SCOTUS ruling, not your opinion of intent.
    His claim was the SCOTUS has the power to interpret the opposite of what the framers intended, because they are scotus.

    Lets say you write a story, and it has a meaning in it. Do I as a literary critic, or Professor in literature have the right to nullify the meaning of your work in place of what I seem to be the clear meaning and intent of it? No, I do not. The SCOTUS is their to comment on new legislation and how it pertains to the constitution, not to rewrite our understanding of the what the constitution says. That was never their power or intent. The only legal way to change the intent of the Constitution, is to amend it. I can't believe I have to explain this to you.

  8. #528
    Quote Originally Posted by JacquesPierre View Post
    His claim was the SCOTUS has the power to interpret the opposite of what the framers intended, because they are scotus.
    They do. In fact, they have. The Supreme Court intentionally refused to incorporate the Bill of Rights for decades because of their unwillingness to interpret the 14th Amendment as intended.

    Lets say you write a story, and it has a meaning in it. Do I as a literary critic, or Professor in literature have the right to nullify the meaning of your work in place of what I seem to be the clear meaning and intent of it? No, I do not. The SCOTUS is their to comment on new legislation and how it pertains to the constitution, not to rewrite our understanding of the what the constitution says. That was never their power or intent. The only legal way to change the intent of the Constitution, is to amend it. I can't believe I have to explain this to you.
    That's absolutely their power. Times change, and the interpretation of the Constitution is REQUIRED to change to keep up with it. For example, as new mechanisms of communication have been developed, we don't need the government to keep adding those under Freedom of Speech in order to protect them under that banner. The SCOTUS just rules that the new technology falls under speech, even if it doesn't involve speaking at all.

  9. #529
    Scarab Lord bergmann620's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Stow, Ohio
    Posts
    4,402
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    That's managing people though, not providing a service to people. For example, it's certainly cheaper for the IRS to collect the revenue to manage these programs, than for every state to collect individually.
    Healthcare, though, is almost entirely managing people. The people providing the service are people, the people receiving it are people...

    Now, if you're only talking about paying for healthcare, or negotiating rates, you could have a point. I'm not entirely sure about your IRS example, however. Think about it...

    The states have to have a tax structure in place in order to fund the state budget. It will exist whether the IRS does or not. Wouldn't it be simpler to scale back the IRS dramatically and instead simply have each state send the IRS a check based on the prevailing Federal rate?

    This circles back to the flat tax... The states themselves could decide how to structure their tax systems, each person would only need to fill out one return, and we could have states where there was a flat tax, and states where there was a highly progressive tax code. We could see which ones did better or worse, and adjust properly.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    For example, as new mechanisms of communication have been developed, we don't need the government to keep adding those under Freedom of Speech in order to protect them under that banner. The SCOTUS just rules that the new technology falls under speech, even if it doesn't involve speaking at all.
    It's funny how many people think this is true of the 1st, but not the 2nd.
    indignantgoat.com/
    XBL: Indignant Goat | BattleTag: IndiGoat#1288 | SteamID: Indignant Goat[/B]

  10. #530
    Quote Originally Posted by bergmann620 View Post
    It's funny how many people think this is true of the 1st, but not the 2nd.
    Because that's how SCotUS interprets it. Unless you're actually arguing that thermonuclear weapons should be privately purchasable.

    3DS Friend Code: 0146-9205-4817. Could show as either Chris or Chrysia.

  11. #531
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/...iesofscale.asp

    It would really help if I didn't have to link basic definitions of widely-understood terms.

    Yes, the per-capita costs of handling things like health care and social support networks are lower when handling them for a population of 350 million, rather than for 7 million. That's exactly what an economy of scale means.

    Yes, the absolute costs are higher, but not the per-capita, which is what's important if you're making an honest comparison.
    It isn't about the costs, it's about the effects. you still don't see it. You think it is easier to make sure the needs of 350 million people are taken care of instead of the needs of 7 million. You think it is easier to account for waste, fraud, or general success? seriously?

    Do you also think it is easier to educate a lecture hall of 700 than a small classroom of 12? Do you think it is easier for a the US to craft a tax code that correctly takes in the implications of costs of living across the entire country, or for states to manage taxes individually and account for these costs? I could give examples all day about this.


    I'm done, respond as you will.

  12. #532
    Scarab Lord bergmann620's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Stow, Ohio
    Posts
    4,402
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Yes, the per-capita costs of handling things like health care and social support networks are lower when handling them for a population of 350 million, rather than for 7 million. That's exactly what an economy of scale means.
    It would be really handy if the number of people involved were the only variable, wouldn't it?

    I'm sure you have some sort of actual evidence that scales into the 350,000,000 range that demonstrates those cost savings, right?
    indignantgoat.com/
    XBL: Indignant Goat | BattleTag: IndiGoat#1288 | SteamID: Indignant Goat[/B]

  13. #533
    Quote Originally Posted by bergmann620 View Post
    Healthcare, though, is almost entirely managing people. The people providing the service are people, the people receiving it are people...
    I don't think that's what the stat you are referring to is about. I think it's about actively managing people, not whether a doctor can see more than 7 patients competently.

    Now, if you're only talking about paying for healthcare, or negotiating rates, you could have a point. I'm not entirely sure about your IRS example, however. Think about it...

    The states have to have a tax structure in place in order to fund the state budget. It will exist whether the IRS does or not. Wouldn't it be simpler to scale back the IRS dramatically and instead simply have each state send the IRS a check based on the prevailing Federal rate?
    No, that could be more expensive, since everyone is already paying federal taxes anyway. You are adding a whole step of states reporting money back to the federal government. Adding a step like that doesn't make things cheaper.

    This circles back to the flat tax... The states themselves could decide how to structure their tax systems, each person would only need to fill out one return, and we could have states where there was a flat tax, and states where there was a highly progressive tax code. We could see which ones did better or worse, and adjust properly.
    We already do have that, but it doesn't tell us much because states work so much differently than a federal government.

  14. #534
    Scarab Lord bergmann620's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Stow, Ohio
    Posts
    4,402
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrysia View Post
    Because that's how SCotUS interprets it. Unless you're actually arguing that thermonuclear weapons should be privately purchasable.
    Nope- I'm just arguing that semi-automatics should be privately purchasable. It's not a challenge finding people that believe that our framers couldn't comprehend ever moving past the musket, and thus that's all the 2nd should cover.
    indignantgoat.com/
    XBL: Indignant Goat | BattleTag: IndiGoat#1288 | SteamID: Indignant Goat[/B]

  15. #535
    Quote Originally Posted by JacquesPierre View Post
    It isn't about the costs, it's about the effects. you still don't see it. You think it is easier to make sure the needs of 350 million people are taken care of instead of the needs of 7 million. You think it is easier to account for waste, fraud, or general success? seriously?
    Yes, that's what economies of scale means. You know the budget and manpower behind the 350M is going to be higher than the 7M right?

    Do you also think it is easier to educate a lecture hall of 700 than a small classroom of 12? Do you think it is easier for a the US to craft a tax code that correctly takes in the implications of costs of living across the entire country, or for states to manage taxes individually and account for these costs? I could give examples all day about this.
    It's much cheaper and more efficient, per student, to run a whole school of 700, than to run a school of 12. That's... obvious. Even on a class by class basis, it's way cheaper to lecture a whole lecture hall of 700, then to lecture just 12 people. That, again, is kind of obvious. It's much cheaper and more efficient to have one tax system across the country, than fifty small tax systems. Again, kind of obvious.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by bergmann620 View Post
    Nope- I'm just arguing that semi-automatics should be privately purchasable. It's not a challenge finding people that believe that our framers couldn't comprehend ever moving past the musket, and thus that's all the 2nd should cover.
    That's not really the main argument. The argument is that the second amendment was not meant to be interpreted as a personal right to self defense.

    The argument that a gun is a gun is a gun doesn't work, because the amendment doesn't say guns. It says arms. There's no reason to exclude biological or chemical or nuclear arms, under that logic.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by bergmann620 View Post
    It would be really handy if the number of people involved were the only variable, wouldn't it?

    I'm sure you have some sort of actual evidence that scales into the 350,000,000 range that demonstrates those cost savings, right?
    I'm sure you have some sort of actual evidence that it doesn't, right?

  16. #536
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,895
    Quote Originally Posted by JacquesPierre View Post
    It isn't about the costs, it's about the effects. you still don't see it. You think it is easier to make sure the needs of 350 million people are taken care of instead of the needs of 7 million. You think it is easier to account for waste, fraud, or general success? seriously?
    In terms of per-capita costs?

    Yes. Obviously. The same way it's cheaper for McDonald's to make each individual Big Mac than it would be for me to buy the materials to make my own Big Mac for myself.

    That they spend more in total is irrelevant, since the point is that they make up the savings per-unit. In terms of healthcare and other social programs, those "units" are people, so per-capita.

    Do you also think it is easier to educate a lecture hall of 700 than a small classroom of 12?
    That it's easier to educate people in larger groups with properly-managed staff is, yes, pretty much exactly why we have schools, rather than relying on the much older pattern of master-apprentice relationships. Sure, you'd want a larger staff to handle 700 students, but in terms of the number of educators you need, it's a hell of a lot more cost-efficient than trying to hire teachers for your own 1-3 kids on your own, as an independent parent.

    Your own example argues against you.

    Do you think it is easier for a the US to craft a tax code that correctly takes in the implications of costs of living across the entire country, or for states to manage taxes individually and account for these costs? I could give examples all day about this.
    This isn't even an applicable example. It would be far more efficient in terms of spending to administrate one tax system at the federal level. It would be less effective in terms of its ability to adapt to regional variations, but that's not actually making a relevant point.

    Quote Originally Posted by bergmann620 View Post
    It would be really handy if the number of people involved were the only variable, wouldn't it?

    I'm sure you have some sort of actual evidence that scales into the 350,000,000 range that demonstrates those cost savings, right?
    The example would be "literally every single business in the world or government program".

    Which all operate more cost-efficiently than you could provide similar products/services for yourself, since if you could do it cheaper and easier yourself, you would.


  17. #537
    Scarab Lord bergmann620's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Stow, Ohio
    Posts
    4,402
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    I don't think that's what the stat you are referring to is about. I think it's about actively managing people, not whether a doctor can see more than 7 patients competently.
    There's a lot more that goes into healthcare than doctors seeing patients. Obviously, doctors can function fine with more than 7 patients. What I'm saying is, is there's a sweet spot. A doctor seeing only 7 patients is likely not being very efficient. A doctor seeing 400 might well not be providing adequate care. Healthcare, teaching, and other similar fields are not like cranking out iPads.

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    No, that could be more expensive, since everyone is already paying federal taxes anyway. You are adding a whole step of states reporting money back to the federal government. Adding a step like that doesn't make things cheaper.
    You'd be adding a step, but also taking one away.

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    We already do have that, but it doesn't tell us much because states work so much differently than a federal government.
    More so, it doesn't tell us much because state budgets are miniscule when compared to the federal one. Think about how much money gets sent to the federal government, then sent back to the states... How efficient is that?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post

    The example would be "literally every single business in the world or government program".

    Which all operate more cost-efficiently than you could provide similar products/services for yourself, since if you could do it cheaper and easier yourself, you would.
    You could have just said, "No, I don't". No need to get huffy.
    indignantgoat.com/
    XBL: Indignant Goat | BattleTag: IndiGoat#1288 | SteamID: Indignant Goat[/B]

  18. #538
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,895
    Quote Originally Posted by bergmann620 View Post
    You could have just said, "No, I don't". No need to get huffy.
    There's no "huffy" at all. Economies of scale are a known factor, which make businesses a reasonable concept, and explain why larger businesses are more easily able to make larger profits.

    It's hardly a contentious concept. It's a fundamental economic principle.

    Hell, buying bulk supplies at Costco for less per-unit is proof of the same concept, to a certain degree.


  19. #539
    Quote Originally Posted by bergmann620 View Post
    There's a lot more that goes into healthcare than doctors seeing patients. Obviously, doctors can function fine with more than 7 patients. What I'm saying is, is there's a sweet spot. A doctor seeing only 7 patients is likely not being very efficient. A doctor seeing 400 might well not be providing adequate care. Healthcare, teaching, and other similar fields are not like cranking out iPads.
    No, they are cranking out checks, which actually should scale better than manufacturing, since there is less variation in the end result.

    You'd be adding a step, but also taking one away.
    If you are going to remove a step to save money, it would be state taxation. Making it so that states collect it and send it to the federal government is grossly inefficient, if for no other reason than that it is going to be a huge political issue. You think a Texas governor won't make a name for himself by refusing to pay fully?

    More so, it doesn't tell us much because state budgets are miniscule when compared to the federal one. Think about how much money gets sent to the federal government, then sent back to the states... How efficient is that?
    States don't pay taxes to the federal government. Individuals do. It is no more complicated for an individual to send money to the state or the federal government. Your argument only works if paying a tax to the state becomes much cheaper because you live in the state and the federal government is farther away, but that isn't really the case in 2016.

  20. #540
    Banned JohnBrown1917's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Обединени социалистически щати на Америка
    Posts
    28,394
    I've always been curious, and since this thread seems fitting, but if anarchy capitalists only support anti-murder/assault laws and property rights, would that mean they have no problems with getting rid of the AoC, min. age for prostitution/porn and min. age required to buy (hard) drugs?

    Because that seems far more fucked up than anything else we have discussed here about their ideology so far.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •