A Philosophical Thought On Health Care & Drug Companies...

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
You can expand the funding without increasing the bottom line cost by delivering efficiencies.

How does the government measure efficiency since it cannot rely on system of profits and losses?

By definition every penny they spend is a loss and therefore must reduce efficiency.

Your above statement is just political jingoism.

OK deep breath, now read the whole of what I wrote. You can increase spending and cut costs and get a net gain. I DO NOT THINK THIS WILL HAPPEN THOUGH.
[/quote]

No, you take deep breaths and answer my question. How does the government know if it increases efficiency or not without profits and losses?

The fact that you don’t even consider that question shows you do not really understand the problem with your above statement. It is completely nonsensical.

102

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
You can expand the funding without increasing the bottom line cost by delivering efficiencies.

How does the government measure efficiency since it cannot rely on system of profits and losses?

By definition every penny they spend is a loss and therefore must reduce efficiency.

Your above statement is just political jingoism.

OK deep breath, now read the whole of what I wrote. You can increase spending and cut costs and get a net gain. I DO NOT THINK THIS WILL HAPPEN THOUGH.

No, you take deep breaths and answer my question. How does the government know if it increases efficiency or not without profits and losses?

The fact that you don’t even consider that question shows you do not really understand the problem with your above statement. It is completely nonsensical.[/quote]

While they are not qualified as profits and losses, the government still has revenues and expenses. These revenues and expenses will net to a number.

103

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
You can expand the funding without increasing the bottom line cost by delivering efficiencies.

How does the government measure efficiency since it cannot rely on system of profits and losses?

By definition every penny they spend is a loss and therefore must reduce efficiency.

Your above statement is just political jingoism.

OK deep breath, now read the whole of what I wrote. You can increase spending and cut costs and get a net gain. I DO NOT THINK THIS WILL HAPPEN THOUGH.

No, you take deep breaths and answer my question. How does the government know if it increases efficiency or not without profits and losses?

The fact that you don’t even consider that question shows you do not really understand the problem with your above statement. It is completely nonsensical.

While they are not qualified as profits and losses, the government still has revenues and expenses. These revenues and expenses will net to a number.[/quote]

Huh?

They have no such thing. Revenues are what taxpayer give them. Expenses are costs. There are no profits only losses.

104

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
While they are not qualified as profits and losses, the government still has revenues and expenses. These revenues and expenses will net to a number.[/quote]

Yes but the governments revenues and expenses have absolutely no relation to each other, while a companies revenues are closely tied to it’s costs depending on it’s quantity of output.

105

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
You can expand the funding without increasing the bottom line cost by delivering efficiencies.

How does the government measure efficiency since it cannot rely on system of profits and losses?

By definition every penny they spend is a loss and therefore must reduce efficiency.

Your above statement is just political jingoism.

OK deep breath, now read the whole of what I wrote. You can increase spending and cut costs and get a net gain. I DO NOT THINK THIS WILL HAPPEN THOUGH.

No, you take deep breaths and answer my question. How does the government know if it increases efficiency or not without profits and losses?

The fact that you don’t even consider that question shows you do not really understand the problem with your above statement. It is completely nonsensical.

While they are not qualified as profits and losses, the government still has revenues and expenses. These revenues and expenses will net to a number.[/quote]

But do these numbers represent how good they have served their customers?

For companies they tend to do that, not so for government agencies.

106

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
You can expand the funding without increasing the bottom line cost by delivering efficiencies.

How does the government measure efficiency since it cannot rely on system of profits and losses?

By definition every penny they spend is a loss and therefore must reduce efficiency.

Your above statement is just political jingoism.

OK deep breath, now read the whole of what I wrote. You can increase spending and cut costs and get a net gain. I DO NOT THINK THIS WILL HAPPEN THOUGH.

No, you take deep breaths and answer my question. How does the government know if it increases efficiency or not without profits and losses?

The fact that you don’t even consider that question shows you do not really understand the problem with your above statement. It is completely nonsensical.[/quote]

The government operates with budgets. They track costs and measure revenues same as a business does. Are you unaware of that?

107

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
You can expand the funding without increasing the bottom line cost by delivering efficiencies.

How does the government measure efficiency since it cannot rely on system of profits and losses?

By definition every penny they spend is a loss and therefore must reduce efficiency.

Your above statement is just political jingoism.

OK deep breath, now read the whole of what I wrote. You can increase spending and cut costs and get a net gain. I DO NOT THINK THIS WILL HAPPEN THOUGH.

No, you take deep breaths and answer my question. How does the government know if it increases efficiency or not without profits and losses?

The fact that you don’t even consider that question shows you do not really understand the problem with your above statement. It is completely nonsensical.

The government operates with budgets. They track costs and measure revenues same as a business does. Are you unaware of that?[/quote]

He is just that he is talking about market signals and you are talking about numbers.

We are aware that governments have calculators too and that they can arbitrarily add meaningless numbers but where is the market signal in all of this when there is no real market?

How do we know that consumers really want the government service? I mean they go there because it is “free” for them but would they go there could they actually choose between alternatives?

What alternatives to what degree?

You see prices and profits are signals that let us fine tune who wants what and that everyone that can earn the resources to get it produced gets what he wants. This is an enormously complex system where all the peoples knowledge about the environment, their relations to other people, their production capability and million of other considerations are condensed in a few simple numbers.

With government numbers all we know is that government has taken money by force and if we are really lucky has managed to spend a little bit less than it has coerced out of the people.

So you cannot compare these kinds of numbers with those kinds of numbers even though on the outside they appear to be the same.

108

Encore!

109

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
No, you take deep breaths and answer my question. How does the government know if it increases efficiency or not without profits and losses?

The fact that you don’t even consider that question shows you do not really understand the problem with your above statement. It is completely nonsensical.

The government operates with budgets. They track costs and measure revenues same as a business does. Are you unaware of that?[/quote]

See Orion’s response above; read it over and over again and commit it to understanding.

Without free floating market prices created by real owners of goods and services there can be no economic calculation.

Since government cannot own anything there can be no real prices just arbitrary numbers. And yes, you speak only of arbitrary numbers whereas we speak of real market signals called prices.

How does a government planner know how much of what good to produce and how can he determine efficiency with out prices?

Entrepreneurs incur a loss when they are wrong; planners just ask for more money and everything becomes more expensive to those they are trying to “help”.

On the other hand if an entrepreneur guesses right he can make mega bucks; we wouldn’t even know if a planner guesses right because there are no signals to tell us this – that is to say, he isn’t capable of profiting.

110

It took the slow guy (me) more of an explanation to see where you two were going with that, but yeah, no disagreements here.