Message from @The Lemon
Discord ID: 519568494401159168
Well the US runs a deficeit budget every year and has done so for 20_ years, have over 20 trillion dollars in debt
17 years, 21.7 trillion in the hole. GDP is an assessment of the total economic activity of the country.
National debt and spending does effect the economy, but the debt far less so than the spending.
You would have less debt if the usa wasnt fo capistalist
Insted of funding medicare welfaire ect thro tax
Make things more liberterian, privetise
What cant b privetised probebly should exsist
<:GWworkshopAkaShrug:398886014711496714>
There are things that cannot be privatised but are essential for societies, like parks, toilets, hospitals, etc. Thus capitalism works best when there is a lot of free market but the government also is a part of it, aka the public sector.
GG @Tranquilise, you just advanced to level 2!
Literally all those things can b privetsied tho
😂
There private toilets alredy where i live
And why cant private hospitals b a thing 🤔
They can be, but they aren't successful, private hospitals for instance still get huge amounts of public funding same goes for most schools. Publicising things makes them cheaper, certain things.
1. how do they make them cheaper ?
2. why arent they successful ?
Money, money, money, business business business
^^
Well because the concept of pure market based transaction is supply and demand. And, because the goods that hospitals provide aren't demanded by everyone, there is not enough money to maintain supply, so to do so they have to increase prices to accommodate, Whereas with public hospitals the supply is not dictated by the demand, but by the choice of where the government sees that there is a need for money that is not met by the economical principal of supply and demand.
They aren't successful because they limit customers who can afford it.
Seeing far more ideology than pragmatism here.
Nice counter argument.
Imo nationalisation is a good idea in a lot of sectors like health care and rail but it when you try to apply it to a sector that a free market would work in, that's when it goes wrong
I'm not so eager on that. Infrastructure sure, health care has issues.
@The Lemon Do you mean nationalization, by the definition? Or did you misspeak?
I mean taking an industry into government control and having it controlled by the state
Like the NHS in the UK
@The Lemon sounds like communism
^^
the free market rules supreme
Not in trains
For example
If I want to get from London to reading on the british "free market" rail system
How many options of train company do I have
The answer is one, I can only go on south western trains
Which are notorious for ridiculously high ticket prices and Rampant delays all the time
But there's no possibility for a competitor to come in and take their place because there's only one train track and they own all of the trains on it
So unless someone was to come and build new train tracks all around the UK (which would be impossibly expensive) SWT are always going to have a monopoly on the trains in that part of the country
So even if you do have a "free market" there's going to be a natural monopoly
Therefore in this scenario its better to have a state owned monopoly where the people controlling it have to answer to the voting population rather than a company which owns the monopoly which cant be ousted by the people and is only trying to make profit