Mitchell’s laws: Reduced money growth never stimulates economic growth. To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Austerity breeds austerity and leads to civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================

A poor service experience with BrandsMartUSA and an truly horrendous service experience with Spirit Airlines (described in the comment section, below), made me think about the question of private vs. government service.

Here is what everyone knows:

1. Private industry provides better products and service than government industry, and the fundamental reason is motivation. Government agencies are uncaring about the public, and think only about quitting time, while private industry is motivated to improve and to grow by providing a lower price, a better product and better service.

2. Government workers will make you wait in line forever, then send you to another line, where you again will wait forever. Private industry workers know their job depends on their company’s success, so they try harder to please customers.

3. Private industry is hampered by government regulation, and would be more efficient if government would just get off their backs.

Everyone knows this and as is usual with “everyone knows,” everyone is wrong – or at least partly so. In fact, I believe government quite often provides better service than does business, at least big business. Here’s the reasoning behind my heretical statement:

Big business and big government each employs thousands of people, working anonymously in cubicles. For both big business and big government workers, rewards for individual performance are scarce, and few of these workers actually contact their customers. They labor silently and invisibly, mostly immunized from the realities of their product’s or service’s efficacy. They just do their jobs and keep their heads down.

From nearly all standpoints, business workers and government workers are the same people. They work. They don’t want to be criticized. They know they have very little to do with their organization’s success or failure. They recognize they are but minuscule, easily replaced cogs in giant machines.

I can see but one major difference between government agencies and private companies: Their leaders’ motivations. The leaders of government agencies follow the bidding of Congress. They don’t focus on invention, creation or competition. They focus on execution and staying out of trouble. They want to do a good, safe job while avoiding criticism and complaints from the public or from Congress.

The leaders of big business are motivated by sales, growth and profits. Customer complaints are tolerated up to the point where there is an impact on dollar inflow. They do focus on invention, creation and competition, the goal being to grow bigger, stronger and especially, richer.

Classic big private companies are banks, oil companies, car manufacturers, pharmaceutical firms, insurance companies and chemical companies. Classic big government agencies are Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and the Pentagon.

Though big companies like to boast about their customer service, and how much they care for the ecology and their product quality, in reality they tend to do only what they must, either for competitive reasons or government regulation.

Imagine where the oil companies would drill if not for federal regulation. Or how even more dishonest the banks would be. Or how little attention to safety and gas mileage the car companies would pay. Or what poisons the pharmaceutical companies would sell. Or the toxins the chemical companies would spread. Imagine how poorly the airlines would treat you, left to their own devices. Things are bad enough with federal oversight; imagine without.

By contrast, federal agencies are self supervised. The good they do is not the incidental result of a drive for profits, but rather because that is their fundamental assignment.

My impression is that Medicare is more honest and helpful than most insurance companies; Social Security is more honest and helpful than most retirement funds. Back in the days when airline rates were regulated, service was far better than it is today. And deregulation of the banks has proved to be a disaster.

I suspect the American public would be better served by Medicare, rather than private insurers, for everyone – better served by federally owned banks than by private banks – better served by airline fare regulation and better served by federal universities than by private universities.

The point of this fact-deficient diatribe is that big government is necessary to control big business, and often provides better service, because it is not profit-constrained. Those who see big government as an Orwellian “big brother” weighing down our freedoms, are missing the big picture. The Tea Party reminds me of teenagers who tell their parents to “Get off my back,” until something goes wrong and they come running back to mommy, crying “Save me; save me.”

Rather than marching against all government involvement, and crying “socialism” every time someone suggests a government initiative, we should search for the points where we can benefit from the creative energy of capitalism together with the controls of government action and oversight.

And now that I’ve had my say, you may wish to read about Spirit Airlines in the first comment.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

==========================================================================================================================================
No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia. The key equation in economics: Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Mitchell’s laws: Reduced money growth never stimulates economic growth. To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Austerity breeds austerity and leads to civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================

This is what passes for a “solution” in the wonderful world of pre-1971 economics:

Washington Post, European leaders agree to plan designed to stem debt crisis

European leaders moved early Thursday to stem the debt crisis gripping the continent by agreeing to a plan that imposes steep losses on investors holding troubled Greek bonds and boosts the firepower of the region’s bailout fund to as much as a trillion dollars.

After marathon negotiations that continued well past midnight, European leaders said that banks and other major investors in Greek bonds agreed to taking losses of up to 50 percent.

As I’ve been saying for the past six years, there are but two, long-term solutions for the euro nations:

1. Re-adopt your sovereign currency
or
2. Create a pseudo United States of Europe, in which the EU supplies member nations with euros, as needed.

That’s it. Anything else is mere patchwork that continually will reduce the euro nations’ standard of living — perhaps great news for austerity lovers.

I award three dunce caps to the euro nations.

(I now am running a 58 dunce cap deficit. Waiting for protests by dunce-hawks.)

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

==========================================================================================================================================
No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia. The key equation in economics: Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Mitchell’s laws: Reduced money growth never stimulates economic growth. To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Austerity breeds austerity and leads to civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================

The cost of healthcare is rising. Only the wealthiest can afford to purchase private health care insurance without big deductibles and low limits. Most people must rely on Medicare, Medicaid or employer sponsored insurance.

But Tea/Republicans wish to eliminate your “Obamacare” coverage (because it’s OBAMAcare) and reduce federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid. Meanwhile, the following is the future of employer sponsored insurance:

Wal-Mart trims health care coverage for some
From Yahoo News, by Anne D’Innocenzio, AP Retail Writer, On Friday October 21, 2011

NEW YORK (AP) — Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the nation’s largest private employer, is scaling back the eligibility of health care coverage offered to future part-timers and dramatically raising premiums for many of its full-time workers. Industry observers say the changes could have implications for millions of other workers, as more companies on the fence could replicate its moves.

The discounter, which employs more than 1.4 million workers, said the changes were forced by rising health care costs. All future part-time employees working less than 24 hours a week, on average, will not be covered under the plan, starting next year.

Premiums will rise for many existing workers, and the company will reduce by half the amount it contributes for each worker to help pay for health care expenses not covered under their plan.
[…]
“Health care costs are continuing to go up faster than anyone would like,” said Greg Rossiter, a Wal-Mart spokesman. “It is a difficult decision to raise rates. But we are striking a balance between managing costs and providing quality care and coverage.” He emphasized that Wal-Mart’s health care coverage remains “top tier” among its peers.

This is just a part of the opening salvo in the private sector’s drive to reduce business costs.

A number of companies have been looking for ways to cut health care costs and have been shifting more of the burden to their employees. The costs of employer-sponsored health insurance surged 9 percent this year, according to a report released last month by Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust. But Drew Altman, president and CEO of the Kaiser Family Foundation, said that a big package of cuts from one company is unusual.

“While we do see increases in cost sharing, this is unusual and is outside the bounds,” said Altman. “I don’t think this will have a major impact on those who tend to do a little bit of everything to control costs, but it could provide more cover for other employers who are looking to move in that direction.”

What he calls “more cover” soon will morph into “the norm” as Walmart’s competitors (most retailers in America) and Walmart’s suppliers (most manufacturers in America) are forced to cut costs, to keep pace.

Still, only about 42 percent of overall companies offer health care coverage to part-time employees, according to Kaiser. About 28 percent of retailers don’t even offer health care coverage for its part-time workers, according to Mercer, a benefits consulting company.

Retailers, in particular, have been under more pressure to cut costs, particularly in labor, as they look to offset a slow recovery in consumer spending. Wal-Mart and other merchants have scheduled employees on duty during peak sales times while reducing staffing during lulls, for example.

But the latest moves underscore the increasing pressure that Wal-Mart is under as it works hard to reverse nine straight quarters of decreases in revenue at stores open at least a year, though it is seeing the trend reversing in the last three months.

With the economy still challenging, the discounter is under the gun to cut more costs and put those savings into lower prices for shoppers to remain the low-price leader. But for Wal-Mart’s own associates, many of whom mirror their own blue-collar customers — who live from paycheck to paycheck — that means they’ll have to shoulder even more costs while grappling with higher prices in the food aisle and at the pump.

So here are the facts:
1. Health care costs are rising; fewer people can afford full health care insurance.
2. People without insurance receive poorer care and are sicker
3. Private industry and hospitals are growing more limited in their financial ability to offer free health care coverage.
4. The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, has no such financial limits.
5. Reduced payments to hospitals, doctors, nurses, pharmaceutical companies and researchers will result in fewer and less effective hospitals, doctors, nurses, pharmaceutical companies and researchers.
6. When the money received by hospitals, doctors, nurses and pharmaceutical companies is spent, it stimulates the entire economy.

In summary: While there may be ways to cut health care costs without reducing care, the most realistic, long-term solution for America is a universal health care plan – Medicare for everyone – funded solely by the federal government. No deductibles. No limits. No donut holes.

Our Monetarily Sovereign government can pay for it. And if you believe federal deficits cause inflation, better look at the facts.

To the degree people might take advantage of such a plan by requesting “too much” health service, even that “wasted” spending would pay for more and better doctors, hospitals and nurses, more and better drug and treatment research, and equipment – and stimulate the economy. Further, Medicare demonstrates that people seldom ask for too much service.

Medicare is a great model. A wonderful model. If Medicare did not already exist, the debt-hawks of both parties would fight to prevent it. Now, they merely fight to reduce this outstanding and beneficial plan.

All Americans, not just our wealthy who can afford any amount of health care, would be healthier, happier and live longer lives. Unlimited Medicare for everyone would help return America to its former status as the greatest nation on earth.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

==========================================================================================================================================
No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia. The key equation in economics: Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY