NZ 111 System- economics

Hi Tartarus,

I'm a new member. A Canterbury economics student interested in issues social and political. This is a new item that has caught my eye..

Only 83 out of 640 emergency 111 calls got through during an XT network outage, prompting Government moves to clamp down on Telecom within hours of the latest breakdown.- Stuff

I'd like to apply some economic thinking here about incentives. Strikes me that private individuals have had their emergency plans joined in the last 90 years or so by the provisions of big government. In the past it was the perview of individuals and their community. In our era, however, we have the intrusion of the state which has taken over and replaced this area of human capacity.

!

In the first place we become complacent about emergency risk because we have been convinced by Big Brother that it is not our business. In the second place, we suffer from this state-sponsored irresponsability as this headline illustrates. Now, not only is it not up to ourselves to look out for risk (a capacity best suited to individuals aquainted with their own lives rather than by beurocrats!) but the very skills and institutional memory we had the benefit of in the past has been forgotten by disuse. This induced amnesia created by the state is, of course, used to justify an increase in the statism that causes it! And that's called a feedback loop, one which leads to increased nationalisation of individual responsibility.

And..maybe...this principle applies more Howardly than this particular application?

Big ideas for an opening post? Nothing you folks can't process though eh? But let's see!

Welcome!

Yes, there is an increasing trend for centralisation, and along with that goes the thinking of "it's not my fault" and a lack of personal responsibility. It is very widespread, but I think that as well as having practical disadvantages such as you have exemplified, it is also to the detriment of our characters.

It's not [ETA: JUST] the government's fault - they have good motives - it is deeper than that.

Thanks, Relict.

It's not the government's fault - they have good motives - it is deeper than that.

Hey don't leave us hangin' on the full causal depth of what's wheeling us to hell in a handcart. What is the motive force behind this perversion of freedom?

On fault, I don't think that good intentions either absolves nor blesses an action. Especially not the sort that amounts to murder by destroying our capacity to respond to deadly emergency. And especially not when it comes to taking a knife to liberty. As much as they may well be destroying the world in order to save it, I'm going to have to keep the finger of blame fixed at The State just the same. How else could it be?

It is we who have relinquished control of such things to the state, after all

I'm not quite sure what you mean by the word relinquished?

Usually it refers to a voluntary surrender of control or power over a thing but that's surely not the relationship we have experienced with The State.

Yes, there are moments when the hardware lets us down, but most of the time it is more efficient.

Compaired to what? You mean, next to how we speculate life could have been without state usurpation? Or perhaps compaired to how such institutions functioned historically? Surely not, since via both criteria state failure is the rule in every field of endevour.

Blank

Bullseye..
Perhaps our own apathy has allowed the state to usurp control?

I'm trying hard to point out it's not apathy. It's a positive incentive to get us out of this area of human action. Authorities tell us to leave it to them and when they take our tax they say it's to pay for them to do these things for us. Why trouble ourselves to fight that, especially when our ability to act has been rusted by disuse?

Diaz, two misunderstandings from the start here. Firstly, State-commanded emergency systems are not synonomous with emergency systems. You must admit that normal non-beurocratic mortals are able to think systematically too? It is the statism that leads to abdication of personal responsibility, not systems per se.

On that same point, that we cannot manage 111 class emergency individually is not to say that we must resort to the State. There is such a thing as voluntary collective action but I feel like you're missing that. I even think people are at their best when doing so and can't see how my remaining voluntary social networks would be improved by state administration.

That some people may abdicate responsibility and expect to be bailed out when they haven't done their homework and worked on measures to mitigate a known risk doesn't mean that the government has taken over and is hovering over us. It just means those people are dumb

Your social theory (People Are Just Dumb) makes my more simple one (Incentives Work) look far less grim. Going by the power of your theory to predict and explain human nature I find much of the world going unexplained. Why do we eat more at all-you-can-eat restarants? Binge on more BZP when it's about to go illegal, illegally download more movies in 2009 before it becomes enforced? "6 o'clock swill" your beer before it is confiscated? Why shouldn't public contracts constantly go over time and over budget (witness our local swimming pool..) when our social system rewards these with more time and money? Why should a health insurance company that knows it is "too big to fail" be financially prudent?

You tell me, are such things best explained by the rational behavior of people with incentives or is it evidence of stupidity with no pattern?

Blank

Michelle, the fact you are willing to discuss this with me indicates a basic level of respect for my intelligence. In that spirit please don't refer to my conclusions as bullshit...

How about arguing what I said, not what you think I said. I know this is challenging, but give it a try. Let's have a robust debate, not a shower of logical fallacies.

..if you are going to use aggression let's establish that up front. I have no intentions of treating you badly. Also, I'm constrained by mortal perspectives and can only argue what I think you are saying not what you're actually saying. Omniscience is still in its developmental stage, at my end.

You'd have to come up with some real evidence for your claim that we are told "leave it up to us" that are on the face of it false.

Case studies from your life and mine abound. Are we in any doubt as to what would happen if we tried to set up our own hospital or police service? Our own currency or passport authority? School? Courthouse? Surely you don't need examples from the headlines to know that the incumbant authorities would demand our licences and cordon off their territories?

It isn't "statism" that causes people to abdicate personal responsibility, they'd do it with or without government services.

Your historical insight would be appreciated in expanding this point. How do you know?

I'm more interested in why people when they've got the back up of a system set in place to help them out and educate them then turn around and ignore it all

If you're understanding me correctly you know that I think you just answered your own question. In class we call it 'offsetting behavior' or 'unintended consequences.'

The reality is that these systems were delegated because ad hoc systems don't work very well

A couple of times I've suggested that State System and System are not synonomous. You're persisting in equating the two as if the alternative to the State is ad hoc reaction. If you reject voluntary collective action then let's have that discussion.

You couldn't possibly feasibly replicate some services like paediatric ICU's, they have to be centralised because they require incredibly specialised staff

I'm not qualified to say if that is true but my understanding is that incredibly specialised staff also exist in the private sector. If I'm right about that then it would be evidence that centralised specialist industrial organisation can be achieved through voluntarism.

Your social theory (People Are Just Dumb) makes my more simple one (Incentives Work) look far less grim
It's not a theory, I've described what is much nearer the reality is of what we are talking about.

Semantic update accepted. Let us say that your social description (People Are Just Dumb) makes my more simple one (Incentives Work) look far less grim. I propose that the way ahead is to test your description against mine by the power to explain what we see. Is that reasonable? We just need some case studies....

Maybe you haven't got to the bit where they study things like the tulip mania in Holland, that's the first recorded speculative bubble and demonstrates exactly that point.

...and that'll do nicely. How does it illustrate exactly that point, about how people are just dumb? To me you are overlooking some compelling evidence of state interference into price signals in favour of a trivialisation of the entire saga.

Blank

"In that spirit please don't refer to my conclusions as bullshit."
Oh, come on. This isn't SC, you are using fallacious arguments and casting this as an ideological argument is bullshit.

If I've done something to offend you and bring on the derogatory characterisation I'd like to fix it at once. I've expressed a preference not to have my ideas met with insults and I can't see that it's a hypocritical request.

Interpreting the world according to economic incentives is a tool for making sense of the world. It's not an ideal, not a value I pursue, not an ethical guide. I mean it as descriptive and insightful toward human motivation. If you're willing to do so in a mutually respectful way please show me how I'm wrong in my understanding of those several examples. Calling it fallacious bullshit is below the level I'm willing to continue debate at.

I've explained twice what I mean by that statement and it's that their actions in abdicating responsibility are dumb

I think I understand correctly that you think those actions are dumb. Please respect my view that they are not dumb but that people respond to incentives. And if you disagree then do generate more examples like the tulips and the ICUs and we can see which description fits the facts.

If I can be shown to be mistaken in my views then I'm going to be thankful for the correction. There is no need to anticipate reprisal.

loltroll.

The correct word for centralising responsibility on the state is
COMMUNISM

Blank

1

I think that Bardan shows he's reading your posts by way of copious quotation.

Condescension about reading isn't required. Nor respected, frankly.

I am, however, enjoying this thread.

I haven't read the whole thread.

Many of my own views border on the libertarian. Personally I would be capable of living under such systems... others aren't. In my experience the vast majority are incapable of looking after themselves. Sure you could argue that this is the result of the centralist policies that have been created but I feel it's largely a matter of education.

I'll ask you directly Bardan how much time you have spent with the poorest of the poor. The filthy crime-dwelling scum of our societies. Go have a look at how their social networks operate and come back and see how many of your beliefs can really still apply.

To go too extreme against the state means we may as well move many words out of the English language.

We are individuals and our individual rights must be upheld but each and everyone of us is nothing without the vast networks of people who supported us to our current states of being. The state is merely an organiser of how efficient those networks are. How large and how powerful. Sure the state could operate more efficiently but that also requires effort. Most are against change as it requires some degree of discomfort, even if only temporary and even if the longterm outcome is positive.

There are some who would argue that democracy should be more extensive. Perhaps a system where entire ministries are compelled to listen to the vote. There is also overwhelming evidence that humans become stupider in groups so the very concepts of freedom and democracy we value may be detrimental to our wellbeing. Perhaps a meritocracy would be better.

But really, at least we don't live in Somalia. The state isn't encroaching on anyone there.

Blank

I personally still think you're dealing with a particularly well crafted troll, Mich. I honestly don't think a normal person can hold such extreme anarchist/anti-statist views.

Blank

I'm sure you are just fine, so am I

That's betrayed by your disrespect so far and lack of trust in my care and attention, also your 'one last try just in case' comment. What provokes all of this?

but other methods of achieving this like individual effort or private enterprise obviously didn't meet the need coherently or effectively enough

Tell us how this is so obvious?

but despite all efforts some people don't take the individual responsibility that is required to make the system work well.

And that must be an enduring mystery to you: why are people so dumb?

Why not address my solution? That it is not 'despite all efforts' but due to all efforts to command and supplant voluntarism that it is dieing on the vine? If we water a plant with poison must we blame the plant for poor health?

In my experience the vast majority are incapable of looking after themselves. Sure you could argue that this is the result of the centralist policies that have been created but I feel it's largely a matter of education.

I believe we agree. We have forgotten that our ancestors were more literate and neumerate and world-aware than we are. We forget that such people gave the world flight and rail and sail and cars and electricity and water and medicine and music and construction and computers and books and schools and librarys and commerce and currency. The state merely nationalised these things over time, and recently in history. Previously they were the perview of non-officials.

Go have a look at how their social networks operate and come back and see how many of your beliefs can really still apply.

Sure. Do you have something specific in mind? I'm all about empiricism.

Well it depends, are you willing to condone the starvation of 400,000 New Zealanders, including young children whose situation can only be blamed on others (their parents who breed like rabbits mostly)

Take away government and benefits and these people will die. Quite frankly they're pretty useless people anyway but it surely strikes a nerve with most people.

We also have centralised Healthcare. The treatments required by most terminally ill far outweigh the benefits of their continued life (often with no increased productivity at huge expense and often they just die anyway).

The power in the way healthcare is organised is that it covers everyone. Some require more of it than others but everyone kind of pays the same amount (if we ignore tax brackets and periods of unemployment). No insurance system would willingly provide the same level of payment for many people who I guess you could argue waste necessary money.

Do we allow the terminally ill to suffer for the sake of fiscal gain? Do we condone euthanasia?

A user pays system will always reach a limit where it becomes unworkable. For this reason some sort of "wealth sharing" will always be needed. Personally I will trust a state more (which by default will have more of your interests at stake) than a corporation, which is only concerned with profit or the empowerment of another individual.

As for all the innovations you listed. A lot of them were driven by the wealth of states. Others were created in far more state dominated societies.

Blank

frup wrote:Well it depends, are you willing to condone the starvation of 400,000 New Zealanders, including young children whose situation can only be blamed on others (their parents who breed like rabbits mostly)

Take away government and benefits and these people will die. Quite frankly they're pretty useless people anyway but it surely strikes a nerve with most people.

I disagree with the 'will die' comment. As someone who lives in a country where most people we know have no benefit eligibility, I have noticed when people HAVE to work to survive, they will... or will commit crimes out of necessity.

Social welfare being there and so accessible contributes majorly to NZs career beneficiaries.

I was raised on a partial benefit by a solo-mother, so I definitely see the necessity and think it's needed, we are not all created equal, we don't all make great choices in life and as a have, we have the responsibility to the have nots. It's called community.

frup wrote:A user pays system will always reach a limit where it becomes unworkable. For this reason some sort of "wealth sharing" will always be needed. Personally I will trust a state more (which by default will have more of your interests at stake) than a corporation, which is only concerned with profit or the empowerment of another individual.

As for all the innovations you listed. A lot of them were driven by the wealth of states. Others were created in far more state dominated societies.

I completely agree with all of the above. Hence my terror at the idea of scrapping ACC.

Frup,
Take away government and benefits and these people will die. Quite frankly they're pretty useless people anyway

What is the cause of them being so useless though? Let's first agree on that diagnosis before assuming some brute course treatment leading to armageddon.

As for all the innovations you listed. A lot of them were driven by the wealth of states.

Run a couple of those examples by me?

D,
What provokes all of this?
If I'm wrong, all you need to do is kick me up the butt with something decent supporting your argument. That will shut me up.

I think you'll encourage me to meet your preferences better if you drop that tactic. By offering to stop bullying me if I comply you trigger my instinct to not interact with you but with other people here who have a different definition of what a debate is.

I'm sure if individual or private sector attempts worked, we'd be using them

Doesn't that amount to the assumption that anything that was nationalised should have been nationalised? I'm sure that's how the government would like us to duh but what's your reasoning?

I understand human cognition quite well and how people are poor at assessing risk

But do you understand why people are poor at it? Can't you see how complacency can and is subsidised and encouraged by circumstances and is not a static constant?

Why not address my solution?
What solution?

The incentives solution. The solution that says these observations of yours and mine are consistent with individuals who respond to pleasure and pain. The idea that public policy may have unintended consequences.

Hahahahahahaha. Universal education in literacy is very recent, dating back to the 1850's

There is also a chart using French data showing how literacy has been falling for the last 300 years. Let's not mistake the Education Act 1877 for education itself. Where education was a prospect, the quality was higher in the past. If you have access to books aimed at children of the past you will see how intelligent they were. Another indication is the volume and quality of booksales in the C19th next to today.

For many people, a clean water supply is out of reach and unaffordable

I'm not sure why you researched these statistics for me?

I think you'd find that the nations with the highest ratings on the rule of law index are those that are wealthiest

You think it's The Law and I think it's liberty. But while you refuse to develope your arguments (tulip bubble? ICUs?) you also refuse to address mine. Let's stop repeating our positions and repair to the facts.