The Market Force Is The Real Democracy

[DVTimes]

One of the great thing about the real market force is that it gives everyone real democracy.

In most countries such as the UK were you get to vote every 4 or so years for someone who you like the face of, and that?s about it, this is supposed to be democracy. In truth its simply a 4 year popularity contest. In truth an individual has little effect on a government, the real power lies with such as newspapers who can overnight force new laws or those who provide a lot of cash such as trade unions. But for most people democracy is simply a word that has no affect on them.

But the true market force does give everyone of any age real democracy.

How?

Well you (in a true market force) have the right to choose what service/product to buy or use, if at all.

An example is you can choose to purchase or not purchase a paper. If the paper is poor then it will have few readers and go bust.

Or you can choose what shops to shop at and what to buy. That is very powerful when one considers it. It means even a 6 year old with his or her pocket money can affect things.

The trouble is we do not always have a real market force, and as such it messes things up. For example in the UK your forced to buy a TV license to watch TV. I believe you can even go to prison for not paying it. The result is the BBC does not need to put on anything decent, as it still gets your cash. It also means it can pay over-the-top wages to people. You have a situation where the BBC pays a presenter ?X? amount. This means the independent TV firms are forced to try to match such wages, and so you have an artificial wage increase. In a true market force these people would be paid what the market can afford. And before you say the BBC makes wonderful shows, have a think how much you really watch on the BBC. We live in an age of lots of channels and now the BBC should raise money the same way as other stations. This would lead to better quality shows as they would have no choice to get viewers. And if they go bust, so be it.

This is why most local councils can waste millions of pounds as there is no competition. What incentive do they have to save money or improve services? None. In most areas the vote is simply a formality, for instance a Labour area will always vote Labour regardless. Rather than save money, most local councils love to spend it on there ?pet? projects so they can have a pic in the paper. For instance in Leeds city center we have a huge TV that cost thousands (and I believe is getting replaced soon). Its just a nice thing for the council to boast about. But it serves no function. All a local council should do is provide the basics, not spend money on non required things.

A chap on TV suggested that we should stop private schools as they were better than state schools!!! This is the true market force in action. Private schools are in competition and so have pushed there standers higher. In fact rather than removing something of quality, it should be the state schools pushing there standards as high as private schools. I went to a state school, and it was clear it was simply a mixture of an experiment and peoples ideology. Schools have no real incentive to improve. They have some silly stats which seem to be a case of teaching children how to pass the stats to give the school good points. The most logical system is that every parent is given tokens. The tokens pay for education. They can be used even at private schools, though the parent would need to top up. The parent thus can choose what school to send the children to. And we should encourage more schools to be private. No reason why a private school needs to be expensive. But in truth I suspect nothing much will change and in 50 years time children in state schools will still be getting a 3rd class education, governed by lots of people with lots of political views and ideology.

What about other services?

We have a contract gardening firm (via the local council). They zoom around every few weeks, often not caring. They use strummers on tress ripping the bark off. I have seen them put poison along the grass killing it. When its wet they dig into the ground. Most people do not like this firm. I have even stated I would cut the area for free as we do not want them. Yet the council said no, its there job. That?s not democracy. In a true market force we should be able to say who provides the service. Its pure madness.

In many areas the dustmen are a private firm (I believe). To be honest the ones who come to me seem good chaps, but what if they were not? Surly an area should be able to decide what firm they want to use and not be dictated to by the local council. Why should firms not tender each area, say with how much they charge and what they will give in return. For instance some areas may want weekly collections, while others may be happy with even just monthly. Some may offer green collection where they collect paper and glass separate. Some may offer to collect your wheely bin from your house while others you have to take the bin out. Suddenly one gets the service one wants, and can choose who to go with. If they fail to provide the service then the contract ends and another firm can be brought in. In fact it may even be a case the local community does its own rubbish and does not bother with a firm. That is true democracy in a true market force.

One of the most disasters aspect of local councils is there belief they can just put up buildings regardless of the quality. All over the UK you will find ugly vile concrete buildings, often needing repairs within a few years of them being built. Surly people should have a say. I personally would be happy if they spent a bit more to have a wonderful building that would last years, and thus long term cheaper. And yet councils can go along, write out checks for the most vile buildings you can imagine. At least the USSA gave people wonderful buildings. Its said that there train stations are the most attractive in the world. I used to get the train from Leeds. It used to be 30 mins of the most depressing time of my life stood in a windy grey concrete tube waiting for a train.

One thing that scares people, and even suggesting it I will be called names is to mention the NHS. This is the point people will stop reading and call me a right wing conservative (even though I support the Green party). We have to be honest about the NHS, in the fact it will go bust. People hate the idea of business running it, even though most NHS buildings are built by a private firms, private firms supply the NHS with drugs and equipment. In truth the NHS has fulfilled its function, and needs to come to an end, but replaced with something that is needed for today. We live in a different world to that of what the NHS was designed for. Today there are areas its poor on such as mental health. In some areas such as elderly its no longer covered by the NHS. It provides things that are not of health such as test tube babies (something surly should be paid for yourself). As a student nurse in learning disabilities I witnessed parents getting thousands of pounds for nothing. One parent had £50k for a lift in her house which she boated that she never used but she loved the fact she got £50k for nothing.

While I am not into the belief that hospitals need to be private, they do need to be run efficiently. I would suggest one result of an efficient hospital is that mistakes are reduced. We see almost daily a hospital making grave errors. Yet surly if it was run efficient mistakes could not be made. And if you make fewer mistakes this means saving millions on compensation claims. Hospitals need to have much tighter control over the cost of drugs. While as I student we had many drug reps popping in giving us free dinner and free gifts. It was clear if you supply the NHS then you will make a fortune as it would seem those who purchase drugs and equipment will pay anything. Also staff need to be run better. Far too many nurses simply are not up to the job, but patients feel afraid to say anything.

Last year on BBC2 (I believe it was BBC2) a chap went in to a hospital and was shocked to find the operating theater was used only 4 days a week. Monday to Thursday, Friday was meeting day and no one worked the weekend. No business in its right mind would have something as expensive as an operating theater and use it 4 days a week. Its nuts.

Anyway this is my rant over.

By the way someone suggested I should run as an MP. I pointed out that I would only be interested in being president of the UK (yes president, I want full control), and as such I pointed out that logically I would end voting. I pointed out that what is the point of voting, as clearly I am always correct. Thus anyone who voted against me was clearly stupid or mad, in which case surly there vote would not count. Thus what is the point of voting for me. While I have said this for many years, this month we have seen Italy and Greece basically bring the end (probably temporary) of the silly popularity contest, and replaced the leaders with an administration government. Indeed is that not a better system?

[grumpy]

doesnt work with big companies involved, market scale is tipped over then.

[epitome]

I love the paragraph about schools using there when it should be their.

[B.Barnato]

Paul, is that you?

[u-Bob]

Originally Posted by grumpy

doesnt work with big companies involved, market scale is tipped over then.

See the work of economists like Hans-Hermann Hoppe on monopolies. A lot (most?) big companies got to be the size they are thanks to government intervention (subsidies, tariffs, government contracts etc) and wouldn't be able to grow to the size they are under pure free market conditions.

[pornmasta]

bullshit

[raymor]

You make a lot of good points there.

Grumpy, if a single company is so big that they are the only company in the sector, I agree that doesn't work well. Otherwise, I wonder which government agency would make better cars than we get from GM, Ford, Toyota, Honda, Fiat, Volkswagen, Hyundai, Nissan, etc., all trying to outdo each other? Auto companies are some of the largest companies there are and competition seems to keep them on their toes. Based on my experience with political government bureaucracy, I'd expect government to make a car that's not as well thought our as a Hyundai, but costs as much to produce as a BMW, and it would take fourteen years to develop. Personally I'd rather select from the many car options on the free market rather than have the government tell me I have to buy a government car. I don't know where you live, but is there some agency there who could build cars as well as BMW or as efficiently as Kia?

Again, if there's just one maker, a monopoly, sure they have little reason to do a good. In that case I don't suppose it matters if the company is large or small. If Strongbox had no competition, we might have less reason to do as much R&D. Perhaps it doesn't matter if the monopoly is private or public. The employees at the driver's license office don't appear too motivated to be the best, perhaps because they have no competition.

[pornmasta]

ideology

pharaohs made the best pyramids

[DVTimes]

Originally Posted by raymor

You make a lot of good points there.

Grumpy, if a single company is so big that they are the only company in the sector, I agree that doesn't work well. Otherwise, I wonder which government agency would make better cars than we get from GM, Ford, Toyota, Honda, Fiat, Volkswagen, Hyundai, Nissan, etc., all trying to outdo each other? Auto companies are some of the largest companies there are and competition seems to keep them on their toes. Based on my experience with political government bureaucracy, I'd expect government to make a car that's not as well thought our as a Hyundai, but costs as much to produce as a BMW, and it would take fourteen years to develop. Personally I'd rather select from the many car options on the free market rather than have the government tell me I have to buy a government car. I don't know where you live, but is there some agency there who could build cars as well as BMW or as efficiently as Kia?

Again, if there's just one maker, a monopoly, sure they have little reason to do a good. In that case I don't suppose it matters if the company is large or small. If Strongbox had no competition, we might have less reason to do as much R&D. Perhaps it doesn't matter if the monopoly is private or public. The employees at the driver's license office don't appear too motivated to be the best, perhaps because they have no competition.

One of the problems with USSR was that car firms had no competition, and as such did not invest in technology, or car delelopment.

As such the cars were expensive to make and not well made.

They were sold in the UK, often cost more than UK cars. Yet not with the quality.

[grumpy]

Originally Posted by u-Bob

See the work of economists like Hans-Hermann Hoppe on monopolies. A lot (most?) big companies got to be the size they are thanks to government intervention (subsidies, tariffs, government contracts etc) and wouldn't be able to grow to the size they are under pure free market conditions.

so my point is valid, would only work if everything is started up fresh like a reset. Thats not the case so it wont work with big companies involved.