You need to be a Right-Wing Conservative to be a Mormon?

[_dblagent007]

The less government the better.

Someone should have informed the hilariously poor Bush administration.

By the way, BC:

George W. Bush. Great president, or greatest president?

I vote democrat for the white house because I want less government and fiscal responsibility. Check out the last 40 years of presidents and you will know what I am talking about.

John, you are going to vote for Barack Obama based on the record of earlier democrats!?!?!?!? Listen to what the man is saying, uh, actually, what he used to be saying in the primary (he has definitely taken a rightward lurch in the last week or two). The man believes the government is the answer to everything. Raise taxes, government control, etc.

By the way, FDR was not a shining example of less government and fiscal responsibility, but I noticed you left him out by your 40 years limitation.

[_dblagent007]

On domestic issues, he's one of the worst republicans ever. Too much kow-towing to the Democrats.

But internationally he was able to start an unwinnable war.

Funny, last I checked we are winning the war in Iraq. Instead of report this new success, the media has conviently ignored it completely.

[_John Larsen]

John, why would competition lead to efficiencies in the company itself but not the market? Isn't the company trying to compete in the market and that is why it is trying to be more efficient?

Because companies must necessarily duplicate services and structures that already exist in other companies. This is why whenever there is a merger or acquisition it is inevitably followed by a downsizing. Think about it this way, what if there were two companies bringing electricity to your house. There would be twice as many wires, transformers, power stations, etc.

Your redundancy argument makes it sound like we would all be better off if everything was a monopoly - there is clearly no redundancy in those situations. However, in a monopoly, the company has little incentive to be more efficient, improve, and meet consumer demand.

Monopolies are the most efficient markets by far, however, the cost savings from single sourcing all goes to to the monopoly not to the consumer. So in a monopoly situation the companies make a much higher margin. The monopoly has no interest in passing savings on to consumers.

One of the strengths of competition is it prevents companies from making huge margins of profit, however it does so at the costs resulting from more than one provider in the marketplace.

The monopoly does have an incentive to be more efficient, improve and meet consumer demand if it means greater profit for the share holders.

If you don't believe me, think of the cable company of old (now they are slightly more responsive due to competition from satellite TV). Are we worse off because FedEx and UPS each have a fleet of trucks, planes, distribution centers, etc. from which to ship goods?

The cable company example is a special case, since the cable companies received federal aid to build and maintain the infrastructure. It might be that cable would have never been economical without federal aid. They had no motive to improve because of this federal aid structure.

We are not necessarily worse off, but it costs more than it would otherwise. There is a lot of unnecessary redundancy that is costly. When you read about the problem of "over capacity" in the airlines, this is exactly what they are talking about. There are economies of scale that can be achieved by larger and larger companies as opposed to many small companies.

Look, I'm not saying that there are not benefits to free market competition, I am just saying it is not the low cost model. Monopolies have served us very well in some cases because competition makes no sense. For example, the electric company.

Should all parcel carriers be combined so that we can eliminate the redundancy? No. Why? Because in this market, and most others, there is no redundancy. FedEx has a share of the market that they service with the trucks, planes, etc. that they own. UPS has a share of the market that they service with its trucks, planes, etc. There is no redundancy. The redundancies where goods and equipment sit idle, which would lessen the overall welfare of society, do not exist because no one in their right mind would create them (government is the exception).

If this were true, no companies would ever go out of business, but that is not the case.

As for the profit motive, you are exactly correct that private companies will have no motivation to do things unprofitable. In most markets that is good because it eliminates waste. However, with regard to space exploration, the environment, etc., there is a role for government. The problem is that even in these areas the government gets hijacked by the special interests to the point that the clean air act is more of weapon to punish "bad" companies than it is a weapon to clean up the air (I should tell you sometime about my travails of trying to get my truck converted to run on much cleaner natural gas only to be denied by the EPA in reliance on the clean air act; bureaucracy run amok, I tell you!!).

I agree with you in general but I don't know what you mean by "special interests".

[_dblagent007]

John, why would competition lead to efficiencies in the company itself but not the market? Isn't the company trying to compete in the market and that is why it is trying to be more efficient?

Because companies must necessarily duplicate services and structures that already exist in other companies. This is why whenever there is a merger or acquisition it is inevitably followed by a downsizing. Think about it this way, what if there were two companies bringing electricity to your house. There would be twice as many wires, transformers, power stations, etc.

Companies try to sell a merger to their shareholders by saying that the combined company will be more efficient because of "synergies" and because certain redundancies will be eliminated. The truth is that this is very often not the case. If both companies are operating efficiently, then there is very little benefit in combining them. They may experience some small economies of scale from the combination, but not much. On the other hand, if one of them was very inefficient, then the efficient company may acquire or merge with them and make them efficient. Then they are getting something valuable in return.

As for the electricity example, you are citing a natural monopoly where it is widely recognized that it would be wasteful to duplicate the electrical lines, etc. Now, are the electrical companies efficient? Not by a long shot. They are only as efficient as the state regulators force them to be. Incidentally, this is one example where there is a natural monopoly that should be regulated. We just have to take the risk that the government will do it effectively (a very big risk indeed!).

Your redundancy argument makes it sound like we would all be better off if everything was a monopoly - there is clearly no redundancy in those situations. However, in a monopoly, the company has little incentive to be more efficient, improve, and meet consumer demand.

Monopolies are the most efficient markets by far, however, the cost savings from single sourcing all goes to to the monopoly not to the consumer. So in a monopoly situation the companies make a much higher margin. The monopoly has no interest in passing savings on to consumers.

One of the strengths of competition is it prevents companies from making huge margins of profit, however it does so at the costs resulting from more than one provider in the marketplace.

The monopoly does have an incentive to be more efficient, improve and meet consumer demand if it means greater profit for the share holders.

You may be right if there was ever a monopolist that for some reason acted like it was in a competitive market and was continually looking for ways to drive down prices, increase services, develop new products. However, no such monopolist has ever existed. Monopolists tend to ignore the needs of consumers. It will only be as efficient and effective as it has to be to maintain its monopoly, which isn't very efficient or effective, especially if the market has an inelastic demand curve.

John, I don't know if you own a business or not, but most businesses have to be forced by competition to improve. You would think that monopolies would try to become more efficient to increase consumption of the product, increase profit to shareholders, etc. However, it has never worked that way. Monopolists tend to make fat profits that keep shareholders happy so that there is no real incentive to take painful steps to make the profit even greater. For example, if I was a monopolist like the phone companies used to be (think AT&T in the 70s), why would I spend tremendous amounts of money on new capital improvements when people have to buy my product anyway? The answer is that they won't - unless competition forces them to.

The bottom line here is that monopolies = BAD

If you don't believe me, think of the cable company of old (now they are slightly more responsive due to competition from satellite TV). Are we worse off because FedEx and UPS each have a fleet of trucks, planes, distribution centers, etc. from which to ship goods?

The cable company example is a special case, since the cable companies received federal aid to build and maintain the infrastructure. It might be that cable would have never been economical without federal aid. They had no motive to improve because of this federal aid structure.

John, if the cable company cannot be profitable without federal aid, then why on earth should it even exist? Is there some right for a company to exist even though consumers view its products as not being worth the cost it takes to produce? No. If they can't hack it, they need to get out.

Incidentally, I think you are very wrong about whether cable companies are economical or not.

We are not necessarily worse off, but it costs more than it would otherwise. There is a lot of unnecessary redundancy that is costly. When you read about the problem of "over capacity" in the airlines, this is exactly what they are talking about. There are economies of scale that can be achieved by larger and larger companies as opposed to many small companies.

Overcapacity in the airlines is due to drop in demand, not competition induced redundancy. Even if we had a single monopolistic airline, overcapacity would still exist when demand drops.

Look, I'm not saying that there are not benefits to free market competition, I am just saying it is not the low cost model. Monopolies have served us very well in some cases because competition makes no sense. For example, the electric company.

Right. There are some situations where there is a natural monopoly. However, the monopoly is something we have to endure since it results in increased costs to consumers. These have to be regulated to do the best we can to make sure they aren't abusing their market power. In general, though, I would much rather purchase from a competitve market than a monopolized market (why? because in a competitive market I get to choose, something I don't get in a monopolistic market).

Should all parcel carriers be combined so that we can eliminate the redundancy? No. Why? Because in this market, and most others, there is no redundancy. FedEx has a share of the market that they service with the trucks, planes, etc. that they own. UPS has a share of the market that they service with its trucks, planes, etc. There is no redundancy. The redundancies where goods and equipment sit idle, which would lessen the overall welfare of society, do not exist because no one in their right mind would create them (government is the exception).

If this were true, no companies would ever go out of business, but that is not the case.

Now hold on. As I said above, a drop in demand will create overcapacity in a competitive market as well as a monopolistic market. I thought your point was that a competitive market producing just the right amount of goods to meet the demand will have redundancies that a monopolistic market that is also producing just the right amount of goods to meet the demand (actually demand is dampened somewhat in a monopolistic market) won't have. If that is what you are saying then I disagree. The competitive market will be divided up amongst the different competitors. Each will have the equipment to serve the needs of the market. There are no real redundancies in most of these situations.

As for the profit motive, you are exactly correct that private companies will have no motivation to do things unprofitable. In most markets that is good because it eliminates waste. However, with regard to space exploration, the environment, etc., there is a role for government. The problem is that even in these areas the government gets hijacked by the special interests to the point that the clean air act is more of weapon to punish "bad" companies than it is a weapon to clean up the air (I should tell you sometime about my travails of trying to get my truck converted to run on much cleaner natural gas only to be denied by the EPA in reliance on the clean air act; bureaucracy run amok, I tell you!!).

I agree with you in general but I don't know what you mean by "special interests".

By special interests, in the contex of the clean air act, I would list the Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, Utilities, etc. Unfortunately, the government gets into bed with some of these groups and it makes absolutely stupid decisions.

[_dblagent007]

For those of you that think socialized medicine is the answer, please consider this:

Canadian Health Care We So Envy Lies In Ruins, Its Architect Admits
By DAVID GRATZER | Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 4:30 PM PT

As this presidential campaign continues, the candidates' comments about health care will continue to include stories of their own experiences and anecdotes of people across the country: the uninsured woman in Ohio, the diabetic in Detroit, the overworked doctor in Orlando, to name a few.

But no one will mention Claude Castonguay — perhaps not surprising because this statesman isn't an American and hasn't held office in over three decades.

Castonguay's evolving view of Canadian health care, however, should weigh heavily on how the candidates think about the issue in this country.

Back in the 1960s, Castonguay chaired a Canadian government committee studying health reform and recommended that his home province of Quebec — then the largest and most affluent in the country — adopt government-administered health care, covering all citizens through tax levies.

The government followed his advice, leading to his modern-day moniker: "the father of Quebec medicare." Even this title seems modest; Castonguay's work triggered a domino effect across the country, until eventually his ideas were implemented from coast to coast.

Four decades later, as the chairman of a government committee reviewing Quebec health care this year, Castonguay concluded that the system is in "crisis."

"We thought we could resolve the system's problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it," says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: "We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice."

Castonguay advocates contracting out services to the private sector, going so far as suggesting that public hospitals rent space during off-hours to entrepreneurial doctors. He supports co-pays for patients who want to see physicians. Castonguay, the man who championed public health insurance in Canada, now urges for the legalization of private health insurance.

In America, these ideas may not sound shocking. But in Canada, where the private sector has been shunned for decades, these are extraordinary views, especially coming from Castonguay. It's as if John Maynard Keynes, resting on his British death bed in 1946, had declared that his faith in government interventionism was misplaced.

What would drive a man like Castonguay to reconsider his long-held beliefs? Try a health care system so overburdened that hundreds of thousands in need of medical attention wait for care, any care; a system where people in towns like Norwalk, Ontario, participate in lotteries to win appointments with the local family doctor.

Years ago, Canadians touted their health care system as the best in the world; today, Canadian health care stands in ruinous shape.

Sick with ovarian cancer, Sylvia de Vires, an Ontario woman afflicted with a 13-inch, fluid-filled tumor weighing 40 pounds, was unable to get timely care in Canada. She crossed the American border to Pontiac, Mich., where a surgeon removed the tumor, estimating she could not have lived longer than a few weeks more.

The Canadian government pays for U.S. medical care in some circumstances, but it declined to do so in de Vires' case for a bureaucratically perfect, but inhumane, reason: She hadn't properly filled out a form. At death's door, de Vires should have done her paperwork better.

De Vires is far from unusual in seeking medical treatment in the U.S. Even Canadian government officials send patients across the border, increasingly looking to American medicine to deal with their overload of patients and chronic shortage of care.

Since the spring of 2006, Ontario's government has sent at least 164 patients to New York and Michigan for neurosurgery emergencies — defined by the Globe and Mail newspaper as "broken necks, burst aneurysms and other types of bleeding in or around the brain." Other provinces have followed Ontario's example.

Canada isn't the only country facing a government health care crisis. Britain's system, once the postwar inspiration for many Western countries, is similarly plagued. Both countries trail the U.S. in five-year cancer survival rates, transplantation outcomes and other measures.

The problem is that government bureaucrats simply can't centrally plan their way to better health care.

A typical example: The Ministry of Health declared that British patients should get ER care within four hours. The result? At some hospitals, seriously ill patients are kept in ambulances for hours so as not to run afoul of the regulation; at other hospitals, patients are admitted to inappropriate wards.

Declarations can't solve staffing shortages and the other rationing of care that occurs in government-run systems.

Polls show Americans are desperately unhappy with their system and a government solution grows in popularity. Neither Sen. Obama nor Sen. McCain is explicitly pushing for single-payer health care, as the Canadian system is known in America.

"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer health care program," Obama said back in the 1990s. Last year, Obama told the New Yorker that "if you're starting from scratch, then a single-payer system probably makes sense."

As for the Republicans, simply criticizing Democratic health care proposals will not suffice — it's not 1994 anymore. And, while McCain's health care proposals hold promise of putting families in charge of their health care and perhaps even taming costs, McCain, at least so far, doesn't seem terribly interested in discussing health care on the campaign trail.

However the candidates choose to proceed, Americans should know that one of the founding fathers of Canada's government-run health care system has turned against his own creation. If Claude Castonguay is abandoning ship, why should Americans bother climbing on board?

[_dblagent007]

Here is another example of government incompetence. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801765.html?hpid=topnews

The senate can't even run its own restaurants effectively, yet the government is going to run our health care, our oil companies, etc???? It boggles the mind to even think we would approve such a thing.

[_moksha]

On domestic issues, he's one of the worst republicans ever. Too much kow-towing to the Democrats.

But internationally he was able to start an unwinnable war.

Funny, last I checked we are winning the war in Iraq. Instead of report this new success, the media has conviently ignored it completely.

Within a day of pulling out, any puppet regime will topple, in this our bottomless money pit.

[_moksha]

I think to make this comment you really have to have standing to do so -- that you are a believer, that you support the Brethren and uphold your covenants. Your anonymous posts demonstrate that you don't, so why the hell do you care whether you have to be conservative or not?

I think I can summarize Bob's comments in a few lyrics:

I'm more Mormon than you are
I'm more Mormon than you.
I'm more Mormon 'cuz I'm not anonymous
I'm more Mormon than you.

[_Yoda]

I think to make this comment you really have to have standing to do so -- that you are a believer, that you support the Brethren and uphold your covenants. Your anonymous posts demonstrate that you don't, so why the hell do you care whether you have to be conservative or not?

I think I can summarize Bob's comments in a few lyrics:

I'm more Mormon than you are
I'm more Mormon than you.
I'm more Mormon 'cuz I'm not anonymous
I'm more Mormon than you.

LOL!

Yes, Mok, it's obvious that once again, Bob is having problems with reading comprehension. Either that, or he just hasn't read your posts that closely.

Newsflash, Bob----Moksha is an active member!

[_antishock8]

http://www.oxfamamerica.org/whatwedo/White House ... t7346.html

That's private industry when left to its own devices. Again, I think a combination of government oversight (that's US making sure THEY don't “F” up OUR living space while THEY, thankfully, provide US with oil).

Back to the question, it isn't so much if you can be a Conservative and a Mormon, but whether or not you can politically engaged in issues that directly contradict the Mormon church's stance on political issues. My answer to that is: Of course. Senator Harry Reid is a good example of political diversity in the Mormon church. I think there's room for lots of opinions within the Mormon church as long as you don't openly criticize the First Presidency, pay your tithing, and ensure you post anonymously on message boards.