Reply #108

In the discussion thread: Why is the "private sector" better than the "public sector"? [View all]

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 09:38 PM

TroglodyteScholar (4,541 posts)

108. I've worked in both...

Found talented people and worthless dipshits in equal measure....

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

116 replies	Author	Time	Post
Why is the "private sector" better than the "public sector"? [View all]	kentuck	Jun 2012	OP
It's a matter of scapegoating and ignorance.	tblue	Jun 2012	#1
As if everyone in the private sector walks on water....	kentuck	Jun 2012	#2
I got a public sector job in 1972.....when all my friends went to college....my parents couldn't	a kennedy	Jun 2012	#9
AND most of the so-called "private sector" jobsl contract with the government and steal	nanabugg	Jun 2012	#34
Private gives much better odds for exploitative profit	TheKentuckian	Jun 2012	#3
Nailed it.	freshwest	Jun 2012	#4
It goes back to at least that idiot Reagan	Art_from_Ark	Jun 2012	#14
I concur in the opinion of TheKentuckian. nt	hifiguy	Jun 2012	#49
Ka-Ching n/t	Strelnikov_	Jun 2012	#83
You have hit on the reason that the greedy capitalists were so afraid of the Soviet Union.	MnExpat	Jun 2012	#5
The USSR collapsed because of its dynasty of brutal dictatorships.	Zalatix	Jun 2012	#7
Marks and Engles both agreed that revolution sometimes has comes from the barrel of a gun	MnExpat	Jun 2012	#15
The "European moneyed familys" would that be the JOOOOOOOS??	tritsofme	Jun 2012	#65
I would expect that kind of	MnExpat	Jun 2012	#69
Give me a break.	tritsofme	Jun 2012	#82
what?	tralala	Jun 2012	#70
The Soviet Experiment might work in an ideal world.	Bake	Jun 2012	#44
You would be justified in saying that if the Soviet Union didn't last ~65 years	tralala	Jun 2012	#76
65 years is NOTHING.	Bake	Jun 2012	#77
Plus the fact they became terminal	tralala	Jun 2012	#78
The problem could have been the pesky anti-Semitic dictatorship thingy.	Zalatix	Jun 2012	#97
Perestroika was a result of their failure, not the reason for it.	joshcryer	Jun 2012	#114
Sears and Roebuck lasted longer	Nuclear Unicorn	Jun 2012	#88
If private sector employees didn't first earn the money and pay taxes...	badtoworse	Jun 2012	#6
And if you didn't have a teacher to teach you how to read...	kentuck	Jun 2012	#8
I went to private schools and I have done quite well.	badtoworse	Jun 2012	#27
Corporate charters aren't created generally to benefit the public.	mmonk	Jun 2012	#32
The same is true for public sector workers. Who do you think public employee unions represent?	badtoworse	Jun 2012	#33
If the private sector can provide a service more efficiently..	girl gone mad	Jun 2012	#62
A great many services would be more expensive if we did that	jmowreader	Jun 2012	#101
Nobody ever got a job before there were public school teachers to teach them how to read.	slackmaster	Jun 2012	#90
I never went to public school...	badtoworse	Jun 2012	#107
If the federal government didn't first spend the money into existence..	girl gone mad	Jun 2012	#21
The concept of money existed before the government started printing it.	badtoworse	Jun 2012	#30
Countries without governments don't do so well.	CJCRANE	Jun 2012	#46
See Post No. 54	badtoworse	Jun 2012	#55
The money Americans use today..	girl gone mad	Jun 2012	#56
In my (non-economist) opinion money derives its value from the good and services you can buy with it	badtoworse	Jun 2012	#105
Stick to engineering.	U4ikLefty	Jun 2012	#109
Wow, you get a lot of things really wrong here.	girl gone mad	Jun 2012	#115
Seashells, salt, or flakes of metal found in streams	slackmaster	Jun 2012	#91
Shame on you for inserting logic into this	Puzzledtraveller	Jun 2012	#29
Customers pay private salaries - what goes around comes around.	CJCRANE	Jun 2012	#45
I'm assuming you're paid in dollars.	girl gone mad	Jun 2012	#57
The amount of dollars in circulation is based on	Nuclear Unicorn	Jun 2012	#93
So you believe we don't have a government that spends money into the economy?	girl gone mad	Jun 2012	#96
Just for the purpose of education..	girl gone mad	Jun 2012	#98
Without the police and the courts, your private business is dead.	JoePhilly	Jun 2012	#51
I never said we don't need any public sector jobs	badtoworse	Jun 2012	#54
The private sector doesn't generate money.	girl gone mad	Jun 2012	#58
Again I return to the Defense Industry.	JoePhilly	Jun 2012	#68
The private sector provided the money that enabled the government to do those things	badtoworse	Jun 2012	#106
Nobody ever conducted business before there were police or courts	slackmaster	Jun 2012	#92
Yeah, we saw the results of that scenario.	U4ikLefty	Jun 2012	#110
Yes, the police and courts have sure fixed that one	slackmaster	Jun 2012	#111
When I did an assignment for the government way back when in 2004, I saw the memo	Laura PourMeADrink	Jun 2012	#10
Yes. Privatization = corruption. It's about pay-offs to buddies and campaign supporters.	JDPriestly	Jun 2012	#20
This is an important point. It's not just abstract philosophy and ideology for the privatizers.	limpyhobbler	Jun 2012	#24
absolutely...explains school vouchers - friends own private schools - more people go - more	Laura PourMeADrink	Jun 2012	#61
The private sector is where republicans get to pay you the least	jp11	Jun 2012	#11
As a proud public employee	Rain Mcloud	Jun 2012	#12
Imagine a Repub Presidency, Judiciary, Senate and House at the same time.	Zax2me	Jun 2012	#13
It's not especially in a service economy you get low paying jobs like fast food and retail with no	craigmatic	Jun 2012	#16
Because rich people can make a killing exploiting the private sector. n/t	lumberjack_jeff	Jun 2012	#17
people trumpet how "inefficient" big government is	ibegurpard	Jun 2012	#18
because the upper 20% makes money on it.	HiPointDem	Jun 2012	#19
It's a combination of hatred for paying taxes...	LeftishBrit	Jun 2012	#22
CORRECT	Skittles	Jun 2012	#23
i am sure as shit happy those firefighters keeping my happy self safe tonight are public employees	fizzgig	Jun 2012	#25
Because we are run by small town plutocracies that want to get their hands directly	Baitball Blogger	Jun 2012	#26
It is more RW bullshit	libtodeath	Jun 2012	#28
Because ideologues have kept repeating the mantra...	ljm2002	Jun 2012	#31
There is no CEO getting rich off of the public sector	tabbycat31	Jun 2012	#35
Lots of companies get government contracts and government subsidies...	CJCRANE	Jun 2012	#48
The CEO of Lockheed Martin would beg to differ.	JoePhilly	Jun 2012	#52
Both are necessary	4th law of robotics	Jun 2012	#36
True, and what else are people ready to give up?	kentuck	Jun 2012	#37
To choose one example:	4th law of robotics	Jun 2012	#41
I would agree.	kentuck	Jun 2012	#43
I've encountered bat crazy libertarians who have suggested just such a thing	Nuclear Unicorn	Jun 2012	#94
I'd consider them no different than hardcore	4th law of robotics	Jun 2012	#95
The idea is that the one must pay for the other--the "public sector" is not self-supporting. nt	Romulox	Jun 2012	#38
I would say they are investments...	kentuck	Jun 2012	#40
I don't disagree. But the fact remains... nt	Romulox	Jun 2012	#42
But the fact is not accurate.	girl gone mad	Jun 2012	#64
The public sector is funded with tax revenue. It's not controversial. nt	Romulox	Jun 2012	#67
This is not true at the federal level.	girl gone mad	Jun 2012	#80
The banks are not self-supporting. Public money bailed them out.	CJCRANE	Jun 2012	#50
Private sector would have no dollars without public sector.	girl gone mad	Jun 2012	#63
I don't disagree (at all). The point STILL remains: the "public sector" requires tax revenue to	Romulox	Jun 2012	#66
You've set it up as if the two sectors are in competition for money.	girl gone mad	Jun 2012	#75
No, I did not. I won't argue points only YOU have made. nt	Romulox	Jun 2012	#86
Or using gold backed paper.	dkf	Jun 2012	#112
Yup	tralala	Jun 2012	#72
It seems to me that the teaching profession is supporting the entire structure of civilization	aint_no_life_nowhere	Jun 2012	#103
Because ...	ananda	Jun 2012	#39
The argument that private enterprise is less bureaucratic is absolutely ludicrous.	randome	Jun 2012	#47
too true	ThomThom	Jun 2012	#53
He is targeting the wrong "Public Sector" Overpaid Congressmen and Senators is where the fat needs	Tuesday Afternoon	Jun 2012	#59
Both sectors do some things better than the other	Hippo_Tron	Jun 2012	#60
If the public sector doesn't include nationalized industries	tralala	Jun 2012	#71
If "the public sector is "sponging" off of the value produced by the private sector..."	kentuck	Jun 2012	#73
The government pays people to provide services and/or create goods.	girl gone mad	Jun 2012	#79
The government pays for its services/employees out of	tralala	Jun 2012	#81
This is an incomplete view of the role of the government in a modern economy.	girl gone mad	Jun 2012	#84
If divide & conquer didn't work, politicians and corporations wouldn't use it. nt	shcrane71	Jun 2012	#74
There's a good book called "The Gardens of Democracy"	gulliver	Jun 2012	#85
Well, without a private sector, the public sector could not exist	IndyPragmatist123	Jun 2012	#87
Tax revenue doesn't fund spending at the federal level.	girl gone mad	Jun 2012	#104
I guess I must have not paid attention during my 6 years of economics studies	IndyPragmatist123	Jun 2012	#116
It's not better. It's much bigger and much more important to the economy in terms of job creation.	slackmaster	Jun 2012	#89
If you want people beholden to you	Aerows	Jun 2012	#99
BIGGER and EASIER BRIBES for politicians	ProgressiveEconomist	Jun 2012	#100
Because Reagan said it...and Clinton said it...and it's what is WINNING in Political America.	KoKo	Jun 2012	#102
I've worked in both...	TroglodyteScholar	Jun 2012	#108
I don't think that it is, necessarily. But you can regulate out cronyism from the private sector.	joshcryer	Jun 2012	#113

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.