So, did you know, that it is impossible to bring out a new replacement hip, for example, unless you can prove to the FDA that it is a significant improvement on the hips already approved? So, by government regulation, we have prevention of better/cheaper/faster options. Everywhere you look, the cost is caused by the government - either through malice, ignorance, or in response to rent seeking by incumbents. I get a 50% discount on my pre-negotiated Blue Cross costs by paying the doctor in cash so he doesn't have to deal with the insurance company at any point. He's delighted because his costs are actually higher than that. Think about what that says. -C PS - I'm glad you think your situation will get better. Don't worry about paying back what you owe, it won't ever be required. Think about the votes that would cost.....
Yeah I was gonna say, that should be way down at the bottom of the priority list. Rational egoism.PS - I'm glad you think your situation will get better. Don't worry about paying back what you owe, it won't ever be required. Think about the votes that would cost.....
I had that about the FDA, among other less than positive things. In the end, it all works because of incentives, which is also why we have the problems that we do. It seems to me that we need to find better ways of providing incentives or better incentives so that the government functions in a way that is less aligned with the accumulation of power and wealth and more in line with ensuring that things are running smoothly. But, that's not likely to happen.
Oh no, I'm talking about incentives in a different sense. For example, a politician's incentives for satisfying their constituents is that they get to keep their job. Then there are the personal incentives, for example, one might get into politics because one is interested in gaining power or influence within the political system or over people. So what I'm saying is that I don't think that the current incentives that entice people to become politicians are necessarily the best ones as I'm not sure I like the kinds of people that become politicians. To adapt your analogy: if your boat is taking on water, then maybe you should maneuver it on to the ice.
I don't know. I haven't read Plato except in passing. I'm not really sure what a good beginning point would be. Any suggestions? I just don't know that what we've got going on will best serve us as is. I am not advocating for broad experimentation with different political structures though. It would be nice if there were some reliable and safe way to test out political structures in the real world, but again, that's a pleasant fantasy.
Oh, I was referring to Plato's "technocrats raised to rule" plan. I read Plato about a thousand years ago when my brain was more flexible, I'm sure it would kill me now. I am sure there are better translations now. We started with "The Republic" and went onto his essays. Don't say I didn't warn you. -XC PS - There is a way to test out different political structures. It's called federalism and is why California is so fundamentally different than Texas, or Delaware is different than New Hampshire. Brill!