Social Democrats in the Wilderness

[grumbler]

That quote is a statement, question mark or not, Mr. Beck.

The question mark at the end indicates otherwise, Mr. Limbaugh.  That is what that punctuation mark means. 

It's even in the name! 

[Admiral Yi]

Yes it is.  You are simply making the same assumption that Grumbler makes that private actors can always reduce cost.  That is too simplistic.  I agree that sometimes they can but not always and the question has to be asked for each venture and not merely assumed.

The question doesn't need to be asked.  All that is needed is that government only consider bids that are less than the cost of running the facility publicly.

[grumbler]

Yes it is.  You are simply making the same assumption that Grumbler makes that private actors can always reduce cost.  That is too simplistic.  I agree that sometimes they can but not always and the question has to be asked for each venture and not merely assumed.

The question doesn't need to be asked.  All that is needed is that government only consider bids that are less than the cost of running the facility publicly.

If all costs can be quantified in a form useful for comparisons, this would be true.  All costs are not, however.

[crazy canuck]

No strawman here. I was dealing with your express statement.

Understanding that "cost" is higher in a government-run system than a privately-run system, given that the latter has incentive to reduce costs and the former does not?

Very dogmatic of you.

Seriously.

You are accusing me of asking a dogmatic question?

Seriously?  You are doing that? 

I am gonna stop, and just let you answer that. I deleted the rest of the post, so as to give you room to retreat before you are routed.

I see.  So you are backing away from it.  Wise move.   Frankly your comment made as much sense as your comment in the earlier thread about the groups who signed treaties not being around anymore.

[grumbler]

I see.  So you are backing away from it.  Wise move.   Frankly your comment made as much sense as your comment in the earlier thread about the groups who signed treaties not being around anymore.

I repeat:  Are you accusing me of asking a dogmatic question?  No weaseling, it is a yes or no question.

[Martinus]

I repeat:  Are you accusing me of asking a dogmatic question?  No weaseling, it is a yes or no question.

This is pure Languish. 

[Razgovory]

I would like to know what a dogmatic question is.  The only possible meaning is a question over dogma but that doesn't make sense in context.

[Admiral Yi]

If all costs can be quantified in a form useful for comparisons, this would be true.  All costs are not, however.

Such as?  What is an example of a cost that are not can be quantfied?

[grumbler]

If all costs can be quantified in a form useful for comparisons, this would be true.  All costs are not, however.

Such as?  What is an example of a cost that are not can be quantfied?

The cost of scandals like Abu Gahraib (sp), for instance.  The cost of a prisoner escaping.  The cost of rehabilitation forgone to cut costs for counselors, or whatever.  The opportunity cost for spending the money on prisons vice health care (or whatever the next-best option would be).

I am not sure why you would even question that some costs cannot be quantified.  You have had some economics education yourself, if I recall correctly.

[grumbler]

I would like to know what a dogmatic question is.  The only possible meaning is a question over dogma but that doesn't make sense in context.

I don't know either.  That is why I ask.  Frankkly, CC's comment made as little sense as his inability to understand that the FN Canadians of today are not the same individuals as those who signed the peace treaties with Britain in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries.

[grumbler]

I repeat:  Are you accusing me of asking a dogmatic question?  No weaseling, it is a yes or no question.

This is pure Languish. 

Indeed.  I cannot think of another place where someone would call a question dogmatic (especially given that one antonym to dogmatic is "questioning!)

[Martinus]

I would like to know what a dogmatic question is.  The only possible meaning is a question over dogma but that doesn't make sense in context.

Maybe it's a question where the answer is not open-ended, and the only alternatives allowed by the question are within the "dogma" the person asking the question espouses? For the record, I haven't read the question being called dogmatic here, just speculating on the word.

For example, the question whether Jesus's nature was "homousios" or "homoiusios" with the God could be called dogmatic, since it only allows two narrowly defined possibilities (and does not allow for the possibility that Jesus was not at all one with God in any capacity or that indeed God exists etc.).

[Brazen]

For example, the question whether Jesus's nature was "homousios" or "homoiusios" with the God could be called dogmatic, since it only allows two narrowly defined possibilities (and does not allow for the possibility that Jesus was not at all one with God in any capacity or that indeed God exists etc.).

Typical Mart, bringing homos into every argument

[grumbler]

Maybe it's a question where the answer is not open-ended, and the only alternatives allowed by the question are within the "dogma" the person asking the question espouses? For the record, I haven't read the question being called dogmatic here, just speculating on the word.

The question challenged the apparent dogma of the original statement (that costs for the state running a prison were always the same as those of a private corporation running a prison) by pointing out a case in which it wouldn't be true (that the private company had incentives to cut costs that the government entity did not).  There is no dogma attached to that concept.  Indeed, the dogma enters the discussion  with CC's later assertion that "This is one of the criticisms I have for the privitisation [sic] crowd.  They work from the assumption that the private sector can always do things for less cost but with the same outcomes or value."  Since the "privatization crowd" actually makes no such assumption, the assertion of this strawman comes from an anti-privatization dogma, which CC later disavows.

The sides here are not "the privatization crowd" with the dogma that "the private sector can always do things for less cost but with the same outcomes or value" and CC's more reasonable side, but rather sides based on more nuanced evaluations of what non-monetary value we should place on certain outcomes, and therefor how much government interference with "distribution efficiency" we are willing to accept in order to achieve those outcomes.

[Martinus]

For example, the question whether Jesus's nature was "homousios" or "homoiusios" with the God could be called dogmatic, since it only allows two narrowly defined possibilities (and does not allow for the possibility that Jesus was not at all one with God in any capacity or that indeed God exists etc.).

Typical Mart, bringing homos into every argument