TED Conversations

Sean Wolf

This conversation is closed.

to nationalize infrastructure and resources and privatize people

A heavy burden of professionals should be placed on the tasks at hand, not whether or not they have the personal capital or profits to maintain their place of operation or to acquire the tools necessary to perform those tasks. From manufacturers to teachers, health care providers to retail sales representatives, the costs and deficit of materials and space can have a negative impact on their performance, efficiency, and attention they provide to their respective fields.

By nationalizing such concerns, they place the responsibility of access, maintenance, and delivery of these important yet secondary elements of their profession to those who directly receive it--the stakeholders, the people. By privatizing the professionals, in the form of contractual agreements drafted by the recipients of each respective professional service rendered, private interests and public governments would be less likely to directly dictate if and how certain services are rendered.

All recipients would share the cost of the maintenance and access of these resources but pay individually the full rate to the specific professional whose service they are soliciting or solicited by.

This in turn would directly show in what amount they pay directly to their service providers compared with the amount they share collectively to approve and pay for as a community the facilities and resources to which these services draw from.


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Apr 11 2012: you can not solve a problem by dismissing or delegating it.

    resources HAVE to be distributed. we have limited resources, and someone has to decide who gets them, and what use thy are to be put. we can not escape that responsibility.

    we certainly want the best people to make such decisions. question: why do we think that bureaucratic government offices are the best we can get? it is rather safe to assume that almost every solution is better than this.

    in free market capitalism, creativity of entrepreneurs and trial-and-error determine the distribution of resources.

    why do we need a coerced monopoly provider, if we can have freely competing private providers?
    • thumb
      Apr 11 2012: First off, there is no dismissal here, only delegation of the responsibility to another entity. Second, delegation is an action, not an excuse, and is necessary in order to get most things done.

      Yes, resources have to be distributed, I don't see how my idea limits that. In fact, what I am saying is that those resources should be distributed among the nation according to what the people feel is best for them, not according to which private company can afford to purchase at a discount, stockpile, and then sell for a profit to other businesses and governments unfortunate to not have as much capital or financial backers. Governments already allocate how much of a certain resource can be gathered by these private companies based on permitting and policy, so what real difference is there with this than consolidating the process to the people?

      Your statement about determining distribution of resources is an argument of a perfect world scenario, however, this 'advantage' of free market capitalism is demonstrably false in the real world.

      You don't get a coerced monopoly provider, because the provider (the people) is still privatized. They charge their rates for their services based on their talents and skills. You still get freely competing private providers.
      • thumb
        Apr 11 2012: according what people feel? how do you plan to measure that? everyone feels that he needs more resources, yet, we have too few. someone will need to cross out some wants, and grant others.

        the choice is command economy versus free market economy. east vs west germany. USA versus USSR. south vs north korea. china vs singapore. that is the real world.

        you americans got so much detached from reality, you want to become USSR. good news: you are on the right track. bad news: it does not work.
        • thumb
          Apr 11 2012: According to what people feel: Democracy and purchasing power.

          You are stating that there are only two choices at play: One of a command economy and the other of a free market.
          Instead I am proposing that aspects of both be jointly engaged. Command economy for resources and facilities, free market for labor and capital.

          The places where command economy fails, namely having perfect knowledge of labor and capital, does not come into play. One cannot have perfect knowledge of these things, because they are fluid. However, resources which are definitively fixed and becoming more scarce can be applied with command economy. Free market inherently ignores the true cost of resource depletion and land development because it does not operate with the concern of what happens tomorrow.
      • thumb
        Apr 11 2012: the very goal of the economy is to distribute scarce resources. this is the main problem. what to do with that ton of iron ore. that question can be answered by the free market or by a central planning board (or computer). there are no other questions.

        if want central command over that, you have central command over everything important.

        the free market does not ignore depletion as long as there is an owner of the resources. if i'm the owner of a mine, i want to

        1, extract as many as i can with minimal losses
        2, restrain production if i anticipate that prices will rise later (as the resource becomes scarce in the future)

        if i have a forest or other regenerating resource, i also want to

        3, extract resources as fast as they regenerate. or else in some years, i will have no forest.

        problem arises exactly where a democratically elected elite makes decisions. they are in power for a limited amount of time, so they want to squeeze out as many as possible within 4 years, and they don't care about the future. yet another example where the free market excels, and central solutions fail.
        • thumb
          Apr 11 2012: There is a difference between what private resource owners decide, based on market prices, and what is in the best interest of the stakeholders, those affected by the drawing out of resources and introduction of other resources supporting their economy.
      • thumb
        Apr 11 2012: the best interest on anyone else is represented in the prices.
        • thumb
          Apr 12 2012: I'm sorry you think that's true.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.