Socialism Vs Capitalism

Daryl wrote:What's in a name? I'm sure that 19th century Americans would see their current system as being completely socialist.
All successful western democracies have a blend of socialist and capitalist policies. The USA tends more to the capitalist than others, but it still has many socialist aspects compared to historical levels.

Funny though how the US spends more on health per person for much less equitable results, than the rest of us, and its piecemeal welfare system is much more susceptible to rorts than others' uniform national systems.

Daryl,

The US R&D is paid for by the US consumers. Socialized health care limits what it will pay for medicines the US develops. That's part of the problem. If the US decides to put price caps on RX drugs, the development of new drugs will decrease and the US will get a batter return on its healthcare dollars.

Just to divert into medical research funding, here in the UK it's paid for in two ways.

The first way is via the Medical Research Council, which is a publicly funded non-departmental government body, i.e. the taxpayer funds it indirectly. The second way is private enterprise with the pharmaceutical industry here carrying out and funding it's own research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_Research_Council_%28United_Kingdom%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_industry_in_the_United_Kingdom

Although the NHS does co-operate with both for clinical trials, it doesn't carry out it's own research as that is not it's primary function.

Mike.

Michael Riddell wrote:Just to divert into medical research funding, here in the UK it's paid for in two ways.

The first way is via the Medical Research Council, which is a publicly funded non-departmental government body, i.e. the taxpayer funds it indirectly. The second way is private enterprise with the pharmaceutical industry here carrying out and funding it's own research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_Research_Council_%28United_Kingdom%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_industry_in_the_United_Kingdom

Although the NHS does co-operate with both for clinical trials, it doesn't carry out it's own research as that is not it's primary function.

Mike.

Well, Michael, nations are free to choose how the fund research. Still, in 2012 the US Patent office received 268,782 utility patent applications from US citizens. Foreign citizens applied for 277,033 utility patents. The USPTO granted 134,194 patents to those US applicants and 142,602 patents to foreign citizens.

It suggests to me that between the US economic system and our peculiar socio-politcal system, we are innovating at a much faster rate that the rest of the world. This is true for medical research as it is on other areas.

Kind of speaks to the value of a system that has strong individual property rights compared to those with weaker individual property rights. After all what is more nebulous than property rights over something as insubstantial as an idea as described in patents and trademarks.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/appl_yr.htm
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/cst_all.htm

PeterZ wrote:Well, Michael, nations are free to choose how the fund research. Still, in 2012 the US Patent office received 268,782 utility patent applications from US citizens. Foreign citizens applied for 277,033 utility patents. The USPTO granted 134,194 patents to those US applicants and 142,602 patents to foreign citizens.

It suggests to me that between the US economic system and our peculiar socio-politcal system, we are innovating at a much faster rate that the rest of the world. This is true for medical research as it is on other areas.

Kind of speaks to the value of a system that has strong individual property rights compared to those with weaker individual property rights. After all what is more nebulous than property rights over something as insubstantial as an idea as described in patents and trademarks.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/appl_yr.htm
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/cst_all.htm

Perhaps, but let's just say that the UK has taken it's eye off the ball when it comes to scientific research. It does happen, but more often than not it's underfunded as the Government would rather not pay for it if someone else can. Off the top of my head I'll speculate that the private sector research is carried out faster and is better funded. They do need to make a profit, after all. The research that occurs in Universities is probably more biased towards the academic, rather than the commercial.

A major root cause is that the three education systems in the UK aren't producing enough people with the right skill set to be useful. It's also too biased towards the arts with science being neglected.

Science isn't cool, you see. Like engineering it's "too hard" apparently.

What we do seem to be very good at is producing managers, however. Most of the students I work with are doing "Management and X" or "X and Management" degrees. Normally tied in with law, accountancy or the dreaded "media studies"....

Mike.

I agree, Mike. The private sector does research better because of the profit motive. Universities provide a service not execute governments staffing policy. That means they teach management to all those eager students willing to pay for it. Non-military government research is primarily driven by politics. Military research tries to achieve some specific material goals that often have commercial uses.

Bottom line is to let those best suited to a task perform that task.

PeterZ wrote:Universities provide a service not execute governments staffing policy. That means they teach management to all those eager students willing to pay for it.

Indeed, but here in the UK we have a bit of complication when it comes to university level education.

In England and Wales (which form one system) and Northern Ireland (which forms a second) students do indeed have to pay for their tuition. In Scotland (which is the third education system) English, Welsh, Northern Irish and non EU foreign students are charged tuition fees whilst Scottish and EU students are not. They get their university education for free.

This is where we segue back into the main direction of the thread. The devolved administration at Holyrood is much more left wing than that at Westminster and it believes access to higher education should be based on the ability to learn, not the ability to pay. This nominally means that students from all walks of life have the chance to improve their prospects through education rather than being blocked if they or their families can't afford to pay. When tuition fees rose to £9000 in England and Wales two years ago there was a decline in the number of people applying for university places. What is also a factor for many is the spectre of student debt - how much money they will owe once they complete their course and whether they can afford to repay it if they cannot get a well paying job. This also deters some from going to university, even if they have the ability to do so.

Now, universities need to have funding so they can function, but where is the best place to get that funding? Students themselves, the State, or a mixture of both? The UK currently does both, to greater or lesser degree.

Mike.

Michael Riddell wrote:snip

Now, universities need to have funding so they can function, but where is the best place to get that funding? Students themselves, the State, or a mixture of both? The UK currently does both, to greater or lesser degree.

Mike.

We do much the same in the US. Many universities are public, in that they receive government funding to operate. Many are private. The private schools receive public funding in that student loans are accepted and facilitated at the university.

Pure public funding for colleges has some issues. The government funds the education and so the government decides who attends and the curriculum that is taught. Politics will innevitably rear its head in the selection process for students and curriculum in some way. That might or might not be good but will shape both who graduates and how they see the world.

In the US system, we have a hybrid model. Students can borrow government sponsored loans to attend colleges and universities. The schools must be accredited to receive student loans to pay for their classes. Getting accreditation isn't very difficult. The issues comes from supply and demand. Many schools accept just about anyone, especially the public schools. That means youngsters who really aren't prepared for schools borrow funds to enter college. Approximately 35% of these students end up dropping out in their first year. Nationally, a recent reports states that only 53% of students that attend 4 year college graduate within 6 years. The drop outs still owe any borrowed funds.

I actually prefer private funding for higher education. I actually prefer private funding for all education. Making the recipient of education funding directly responsible to those receiving the education (and paying for it) would make the entire process much more efficient. More efficient and cheaper.

PeterZ wrote:We do much the same in the US. Many universities are public, in that they receive government funding to operate. Many are private. The private schools receive public funding in that student loans are accepted and facilitated at the university.

Pure public funding for colleges has some issues. The government funds the education and so the government decides who attends and the curriculum that is taught. Politics will innevitably rear its head in the selection process for students and curriculum in some way. That might or might not be good but will shape both who graduates and how they see the world.

In the US system, we have a hybrid model. Students can borrow government sponsored loans to attend colleges and universities. The schools must be accredited to receive student loans to pay for their classes. Getting accreditation isn't very difficult. The issues comes from supply and demand. Many schools accept just about anyone, especially the public schools. That means youngsters who really aren't prepared for schools borrow funds to enter college. Approximately 35% of these students end up dropping out in their first year. Nationally, a recent reports states that only 53% of students that attend 4 year college graduate within 6 years. The drop outs still owe any borrowed funds.

I actually prefer private funding for higher education. I actually prefer private funding for all education. Making the recipient of education funding directly responsible to those receiving the education (and paying for it) would make the entire process much more efficient. More efficient and cheaper.

Yep, our higher education system has pretty much the same set up, though we seem to have a lower drop out rate.

The problem with your last point, from a UK perspective, is that it splits people into who can and who cannot pay. No, in this country our forbears fought long and hard against the ruling elite for equal rights and that includes free education to allow the "lower orders" to improve themselves.

After suffering from "Tyranny of the Minority" for centuries, a little "Tyranny of the Majority" is a good thing.

Mike.

Michael Riddell wrote:
Yep, our higher education system has pretty much the same set up, though we seem to have a lower drop out rate.

The problem with your last point, from a UK perspective, is that it splits people into who can and who cannot pay. No, in this country our forbears fought long and hard against the ruling elite for equal rights and that includes free education to allow the "lower orders" to improve themselves.

After suffering from "Tyranny of the Minority" for centuries, a little "Tyranny of the Majority" is a good thing.

Mike.

My only point about public funding was that it is too easily made to be restrictive. Think about the drop out rate. For the US it's pretty ugly. We have public primary and seconday education, but it does not prepare the students to achieve in college. That's not necessarily a bad thing if the level of education is high and the collegiate standards are higher yet. That unfortunately isn't the case. Too many of our secondary schools are simply awful and all the efforts to make them better have been rejected by many of the politicians.

Our voucher programs and charter schools offer a valuable alternative, but the National Education Association or nationa teacher's union has been aggressively against them. Politics and self preservation at their core. Do not improve secondary education, but make it easier to wash out in college and pay for the privilege.

Loans are alright if the secondary schools truly prepare the students for college. Because students are encouraged to attend college but do not have a realiastic idea of how prepared they are, almost a third of the US incomming freshment (1st year) do not begin their second year and half do not complete their 4 year undergraduate degree within 6 years. That suggests that a huge amount of incomming freshment will incure debt for no return at all. Even so, graduating secondary school students are encouraged to attend college without serious regard for ability to succeed. To me that suggests an artificial inflation of demand which tends to increase tuition prices without any attendant increase in quality of education.

Michael Riddell wrote:
[SNIP]

After suffering from "Tyranny of the Minority" for centuries, a little "Tyranny of the Majority" is a good thing.

Mike.

A quote from the American Revolution, "Why should I trade one tyrant 3,000 miles away for 3,000 tyrants one mile away? A legislative body can trample ones liberty as well as a king." Why Thomas Jefferson worked to get the Bill of Rights added to our Constitution, unfortunately the tyrants of all political stripes have been chipping at them ever since! Just saying.

Poker