When should the government run an industry?

[BrentWil]

A very simple question for DUers. When should the Government run an industry and when should the private sector run it? What cases should be in-between?

[chromotone]

1. When it involves national security...

Energy, education, health care, environment, military...all are national security concerns.

If you want to sell pizzas, running shoes, CDs, and lipstick, then use capitalism.

I believe we've learned by now the folly of believing that a small group of powerful individuals working in secret for the benefit of investors does not have the best interests of the nation at heart.

[shirleym]

37. Whenever teabaggers need it to. nt

[Tsiyu]

230. +1

Welcome to DU

[jody]

2. When citizens believe a central planning committee appointed by elite leaders can do a better job

of deciding what products citizens want than each citizen can do for themselves.

[Greyhound]

60. Very clever.

See how subtly you worked the terminology from the Soviet dictatorship into your response.

I'll bet nobody even noticed.

[LooseWilly]

154. Uhh, you mean like a board of directors appointee?

A central planning committee/board of elites leaders/directors from the business world, as defined by the elite of the business world (who seem to always judge/appoint each other to be the elite leaders of the business world) who appoint a CEO to decide what products citizens want... and then employ advertisers to convince said citizens that said decisions about said products are in fact what the citizens want... is that what you mean?

Seems to me citizens have more say in choosing government "elite leaders" to "decide what products citizens want" than they have in choosing corporate "elite leaders"... what's the problem? Hell, what's the difference? (I mean, aside from the fact that corporations will fight dirtier to keep the workers who actually "build the products" from unionizing to get a piece of the profits for themselves.)

[IndianaJoe]

3. When there is a public concensus that it do so for one thing.

I like the federal government running the postal service. I like NPR. I like the idea of free public libraries. I wouldn't want the army "privatized".

[IndianaJoe]

5. Maybe when a profit motive is secondary.

I think cheap public transport -- like Amtrak -- is something worth having, for example.

[Gaedel]

207. Priced an AMTRAK ticket lately?? nt

[Common Sense Party]

231. You do realize that NPR is not government-run, right?

[leftstreet]

4. What is YOUR opinion on this grave matter?

:shrug:

[BrentWil]

6. They should run it when there is not a workable business model and it is in our national interests

to run the industry. Such things as building highways are not gong to have a workable business model. If there is an industry that morality dictates that people have access to, I believe the right means to ensure access is subsidizing people, which is basically the current health care plan.

That also means I am not opposed to privatization of some current government operations. For example, I think the Post Office could become an IPO. There is clearly a business model that works(FEDEX, UPS, ETC) and I see no need to continue to send millions a year when it could be spent on helping the more needy.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

32. The government postal services benefit everybody.

With the added bonus of not preventing private enterprises from offering services.

If you don't think benefiting everybody is a good thing, then you're Glenn Beck.

[BrentWil]

43. Not the environment..

It provides a federal money to help companies produce millions of tons of junk mailings. As I stated, mail is something for the past anyway. The USPS can't even handle getting things to people quick, as it contracts that out with Fedex.

[laughingliberal]

194. Heh! Last week a customer mailed us a check from San Francisco USPS. We had it the next day.

She called us at 8 Am, asked the amount of our invoice, and said she'd get it in the mail. First class mail, less than 50 cents and we had it in 32 hours. Good enough for me.

[socialist_n_TN]

39. HOw much would FedEx or UPS charge to

mail a letter across country?

[BrentWil]

42. How much does the postal service REALLY charge..

And could the money they REALLY charge be better used to help the poor get quality education? Moreover, personal mail is a thing of the past.

[laughingliberal]

196. Oh, right. Like that's where the money would go. Like every other privatization scheme the RW

it would mean we pay more for the service. Once the big guys drive the little guys out, we'll pay a lot more and, in time, their service will get worse.

[Rabrrrrrr]

218. Know what else is a thing of the past? Healthcare for children. I'm not a child,

so there's no reason for that service. I mean, if *I'm* not using legitimately, clearly no one else is. because my experience is 100% normative for all people.

:eyes:

Seriously, do you even read your posts?

[leftstreet]

40. Well, putting postal employees out of work would certainly create more needy

uh...not sure I'm following your logic here

[BrentWil]

45. Who said they would be put out of work?

It can compete with fedex, UPS, etc. Make it an IPO, give it some seed money, and let it go.

[laughingliberal]

198. Yay! Your tax dollars diverted to share holder dividends!

And the added benefit of lowering wages and benefits for their workers every time the stock price drops!

[Greyhound]

82. That's probably because you, like nearly all American, have no idea

how good and how huge the USPS is. Your opinion is formed from an incessant smear campaign that has been stoked for 30 - 40 years.

There is no delivery organization on earth that can even compete with the USPS. FedEx, UPS, and DHL combined could not handle 5% of what the USPS does and if they tried, a domestic letter would cost $2 - $3 to mail and would take a week or more to get across the country. Do you know that the USPS subsidizes the businesses you named to the tune of almost $3B a year, by law? That it is specifically prohibited from owning or operating it's own aircraft and must pay their 'competition' usurious rates to lease space on their flights, and that when a flight is full it is the USPS freight that is left behind?

I could go on for hours about all the ways that USPS is unfairly maligned, has been purposely mismanaged, and is the only thing standing between you and the nightmare of 'private' mail delivery.

The USPS is the envy of the world, yet we have no idea how good it is, so it is an easy target for the "gubbanmint don't work" crowd to repeat the lies and distortions fed them.

[Desertrose]

202. Absolutely, Greyhound!!!

When I ship overseas, the USPS can get the job done for hundreds less than UPS or FedEx.(Example- package to UK.. USPS- $62...FedEx & UPS were about $232.)

I think the USPS does a FANTASTIC job 99.999% of the time.

[Greyhound]

228. And that's the problem, that 1/10,000th of a percent. They're just so huge that

the rarest of problems still number in the thousands.

None of the competition does as good a job and they charge way more to do it badly.

President Obama re-appointing Potter was another of the early disappointments, that asshole is doing his best to destroy the post office.

[laughingliberal]

187. Reagan appreciation day, again?

Turning the post office over to Fed Ex means higher prices for all, even those 'more needy' who need to mail letters. Post office is still the best value and people who want to spend their money to use Fed Ex are free to do so. But not with our tax dollars. Every formerly public system which has been privatized and taken over by entities with a profit motive now costs us more and provides less service.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

234. He's trying to build liberal cred now. See:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8483940

:rofl:

[TBF]

7. When should it not?

Capitalism isn't working so hot for most of us now is it?

[BrentWil]

8. Should they run Apple?

[TBF]

10. Sorry, we're not on the same side here partner

your post is a right wing attack on nationalization, which is a topic being discussed in various ways due to the oil spill. as you well know...

[BrentWil]

13. I just want to know.. would my Mac be better if it was government produced?

We don't have to be on the same side. Just want to know

[TBF]

14. I answered your question -

yes nationalization of many industries would be ideal.

[BrentWil]

16. No you didn't...

I said, would the Mac I am typing on right NOW be a better product. If so, why?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

17. He answered the borderline non-stupid question, which is the one in the OP.

The Apple one doesn't merit discussion.

[BrentWil]

18. Why?

It is a practical example and I would really like to know. Would my Mac be a better product and why? I really want to know

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

19. Because it's an obvious lame setup for a straw man argument.

Man, this is starting to remind me of the time I took my kid to the zoo.

[BrentWil]

20. No it isn't..

If the government should nationalize the computer industry, make an argument for why that is better for the consumer. If you take a position, you need to defend it.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

22. I have not stated any position because the question is disingenuous.

But let's suppose I say "no, Apple is not one of the companies the government should take over". What would be your response to that?

[BrentWil]

25. Why?

I really want to know. What is the decision for you?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

26. It's that one in quotes. So what?

[BrentWil]

27. It is the point of the thread

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

29. The thread is disingenuous from the get go.

It's been glaringly proven.

Mind you, I'm not trying to convince YOU of anything. You're obviously beyond convincing. This is for the benefit of any onlookers who might mistakenly believe you have a point.

The purpose of your argument has been exposed.

[BrentWil]

30. So by not answering if Apple should be nationalized and defending it, you win?

I mean, I think I am pretty clear where I stand and answered honestly. I simply wanted a discussion to know understand what and why other think something.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

33. I did answer, and the only reason you're "pretty clear" is...

...that you've failed to be unclear as you were planning to.

Photons go in, photons come out.

[BrentWil]

34. No I didn't..

Pretty much stated what I think. I think the government would work best didn't do what it didn't have to, taxed the rich, didn't tax the poor (I.e. SS tax), and gave the poor resources to ensure they have health care, education, and housing.

I know, that is right wing.

[laughingliberal]

212. Privatization of public services is right wing.

I have yet to see one government service that was turned over to a private, profit driven entity that did not wind up costing more and providing less.

[Warren Stupidity]

57. Because apple sells high tech toys that don't matter.

What they need is better social regulation of their production facilities that abuse people, it seems, to the point of suicide, under the near slave labor conditions of the capitalist totalitarian state of china.

[BzaDem]

63. Just because you are uncomfortable with a question doesn't mean it isn't a good question

in fact, the fact that you are weaving and dodging and pretending that the question doesn't have merit seems to me to be proof the question is a great question.

It is a straightforward, direct, practical, non-abstract question. It is basically the opposite of a strawman.

[Oregone]

98. Yes

Better value, even if it costs the same, because you get dividends on the profits being a citizen of the government.

Just because its government owned doesn't mean the same executives and workers wouldn't be involved, making the same products. No one buys a Mac because some rich guy owns 23% of the company, making it more attractive for the consumer. Shareholders are behind the curtain, just as the government could be in a successful model.

[madinmaryland]

101. I hate to say this, but you are comparing apples to oranges.

A Mac is an accessory that is interchangeable and is a commodity, just like the shoes you buy. The USPS is not a commodity but a service. It is something that we all rely on and is a function like police service that is not adaptable to the privatization model.

[William Z. Foster]

152. my solution

Confiscate your Mac before you post again and someone gets hurt.

[laughingliberal]

213. ROFL!! nt

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

28. Post #21 proves you right.

And just in case he edits it, he said: "Wouldn't disagree.. But also would point out that government ran does not mean 'safe', at least not always."

SAFE! I wasn't saying anything about safety!

Obvious agenda is obvious.

[NM_hemilover]

227. What about those of us who are just fine with capitalism ?

[gravity]

9. The government should run the social services

everything else for the most part should be private.

I do think some cases there should be competition for certain industries. I believe that the government and insurance companies should compete on healthcare coverage.

[socialist_n_TN]

41. If a company is too big to fail

it's the right size to nationalize. That is if it promotes the general welfare.

[gravity]

48. They should be broken up or heavily regulated

I don't see the need for the government to start running corporations. It will just increase bureaucracy, corruption and inefficiency.

The government's business should be on things that the private sector can't provide efficiently itself, like welfare, education, defense, roads and healthcare.

[Bigmack]

11. The govt should run anything capable of hurting....

our people, our economy, or our security.

The banks have shown they can't be trusted to run their business with the economy or security of our country in mind, for example.

[BrentWil]

12. Does government ran mean that it cannot hurt our economy and or people?

I think Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac or two government set up and ran companies the hurt us.

[Warren Stupidity]

55. Fannie and freddie were divorced from public control.

We are so allergic to the EVILE SOCIALISM that we set up these strange operations that are sort of government corporations but not really. Fannie went quasi private in 1968. A very good argument can be made that it was the privatization of fannie and freddie that set the stage for the massive manipulation of the mortgage market that the wall street banksters engaged in that led to the collapse two years ago.

[laughingliberal]

214. Very good point, deliberately overlooked by the RW 'privatize everything' crowd. nt

[Bigmack]

121. Of course the govt can hurt us, but at least we ....

(theoretically) have some control over the government. We have less than no control over corporations.

Government certainly has fucked up Iraq and Vietghanistan, and there's lots more examples, but I'd like to believe the government just fucks up, mostly, rather than screws up with malice and designed to screw the economy.

Freddie and Fannie are not got examples:

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html#ixzz0plG6LVh6

By David Goldstein and Kevin G. Hall | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail.

Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They've specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems.

Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.

Federal Reserve Board data show that:

More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.
The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004



Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html#ixzz0plG0El00

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

15. When it's impossible to have productive competition.

Examples: water, electricity.

[BrentWil]

21. Wouldn't disagree..

But also would point out that government ran does not mean "safe", at least not always.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

23. And the truth of post #10 is hereby proved.

Thanks for playing.

[madinmaryland]

105. My friend. You are being very disingenuous when you say "government run" does not mean safe.

We have had 30 years of government deregulation and the decimation of many of the control mechanisms that were set up to provide fair, safe, and equal private competition. That is what has caused the issues we are now seeing.

Think for a minute, if you took 95% of the state, county, and local highway patrolmen (and women) off duty and eliminated ALL DUI enforcement, what would happen to our public highway systems. Well, that is what is happening now.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

235. You'll notice my post didn't have anything to do about safety.

More transparent than intergalactic vacuum.

[Codeine]

64. I actually really like this answer. nt

[yurbud]

24. when business has shown they cannot be trusted with an essential service or strategic resource

the first category would be electricity, water, sewers, and the internet.

The second would be energy policy and extraction of oil and other hydrocarbons, and the decisions of whether and when to shift to other sources of energy.

[Sebastian Doyle]

31. I side with Thom Hartmann and Mike Malloy on this one

there are some things which simply should NEVER be privatized. Energy is one. Health Care is another. There are a few other categories which apply, but I don't want to divert the thread.

Corporate America has proven itself extremely irresponsible and reckless when it comes to managing energy resources. Because of this we have two useless wars still going on nearly a decade later. (And yes, goddamn it, it's about the oil and natural gas in the region. Don't bother with the fictional excuses for it.) We now have the worst environmental disaster in history, with no realistic way of ending it any time soon. And yet the drive to continue with this fucking 19th century technology continues. Why? Because corporations can't own the sun. Or the wind. Or hydrogen. The most they could do is take over the companies which sell the necessary components to allow you to use these forms of energy, but they will NEVER control the supply. And in Corporate America, if it ain't profitable, it's "useless".

So Hell yes, nationalize the oil. And the electrical grid. And the nuclear plants, coal industry, etc.

[Oregone]

35. When it can make a profit or provide a necessary good or service

And BTW, shareholders don't "run an industry". Their executives do. Shareholder just reap the benefits; in this case, the American people are the shareholders. Any profit is ultimately imparted to them, and any loss must be justified by what is provided to the public in return.

The government could retail T-shirts for all I care if they have a significant market share and use the returns to fund entitlements.

[socialist_n_TN]

44. Bingo! I wouldn't mind seeing the government

get into ANY business that would "promote the general welfare". Capitalists have told us for DECADES that the government can't do anything right or efficient. Great. Let them prove it by actually COMPETING with government made products and services.

Edited to add a word.

[BrentWil]

46. Amtrak sucks..

And if they do, will it be a revenue neutral proposition for tax payers?

[Oregone]

56. "will it be a revenue neutral proposition for tax payers"

Define "revenue neutral".

Will this definition take into account the socio-economic status of the people and their mobility? IOW, if it costs the government $5 dollars to each person $10 dollars they would throw at the private market, thats not revenue neutral but may surely be justified. Socialized health insurance is a great example of a service that may cost the government money but significantly increase social mobility and wealth in a general population (thereby, resulting in more government revenue from taxation after some amount of time). Some services are worth paying for.

[BrentWil]

62. I have no problem if the government isn't neutral for health care...

That is something that is needed for the poor. I do have a problem if tax payers are supporting government ran fast food.

[Oregone]

65. What makes you think fast food wouldn't turn a profit?

:rofl:

[Warren Stupidity]

61. amtrak sucks because it has been systematically starved by congress

Go to Europe and take a real train. All at a minimum highly subsidized if not directly state run. Fabulous transportation systems. We used to invest in infrastructure - for example the interstate system - but we started pulling back in the late 70's and now we are nearly 40 years behind other highly developed nations. Thanks Ronnie!

[Oregone]

73. So lets throw out the baby with the bathwater!

Since American politicians can't run industry, industry must be private!

:sarcasm:

America should rather reform their approach to running industry

[BrentWil]

75. Or focus on core things..

And give redistribute wealth to help people.

[Oregone]

78. All business redistributes wealth created in production/operation

Capitalism distributes it to the rich and socialism distributes it to each according to their need.

If you are calling for redistribution to help people, socialized for-profits are as good of a place to start as any. That revenue goes straight back to the government coffers

[laughingliberal]

215. +1000 nt

[madinmaryland]

106. Amtrak sucks, yet it get mere pennies compared to the airlines?

:wtf:

[Hempathy]

36. When it can be considered part of the "infrastructure" of the economy-

The Government should be in control.

As for what i would consider to be such infrastructure- Power, water & sewer, roads, protective services- military, police, fire dept.; BANKING- There should be at the least a Government Bank to lend directly to individuals and small businesses, at a minimal rate of interest, especially for mortgages or business expansion.

Also- the military should return to doing a lot of things for itself that have been farmed out to Haliburton and the like.

[Oregone]

38. What if it funds necessary infrastructure?

For example, here in BC, the government has a crown corporation that competes against private companies and sells liquor for-profit. Clearly, beer, wine and liquor are not part of the infrastructure, but the billions in revenue the government makes funds entitlements and infrastructure. Thats a good case for the government to have a socialized entity in a specific industry (though not a monopoly).

[BrentWil]

47. Ever been to a ABC store in Virginia or NC?

It sucks. No choice and high prices. It is a government monopoly.

[Oregone]

52. Yes

Ive bought liquor from both venues while living in southwest Virginia for years. And this doesn't follow the model I was mentioning earlier (http://www.bcliquorstores.com/)

The nicest, cheapest liquor stores in my province are government run; I don't even visit private ones any more, which carry little, skimp on the decor, and are not very competitive. The provincial stores make billions a year. It can be done, so a simple counter-example serves as no rule. Those are merely instances of terribly ran/managed entities. A properly structured government entity can operate as efficiently and as innovatively as any private company.

Rich people's kids don't have special goo in their DNA that produces miracles.

[BrentWil]

72. Thats because a privately owned company has to buy from Liquor Distribution Branch

They can't simply get it from a whole seller at competitive prices. It is all a government system.

[Oregone]

76. So you are saying, a system exists where the government can compete and turn a profit

And you hate that system with a passion......

Well, I love it. Thats where I get my beer and it also pays for my health care. Deal with it.

[BrentWil]

81. The system isn't one in which it "competes"

The system is the same as the one in Virginia, besides private firms can buy from THEM at a slightly reduced price and then resell. If it was competing, they would allot the private firms to get it from wholesalers.

A much better way to get tax from it is a sales tax.

[Oregone]

90. 13% is not a "slightly reduced price"

Nice try.


"A much better way to get tax from it is a sales tax."

Consumption sin tax? Do you hate socialism, or just the people?

[Hempathy]

51. Basically- that's what liquor taxes are for.

No, the government shouldn't be in the liquor-store business, the fast-food business, the dry-cleaning business, and on and on and on...

[Oregone]

53. Why? If they can compete and turn a profit, what does it matter who the shareholders are?

[Hempathy]

66. It's not a function of "government" to get into every business that turns a profit.

It's not what our society wants from it's government.

Maybe it's different in your country.

[Oregone]

70. Isn't the function of government dynamic?

Here, my government sells liquor, sells great food on their ferries (and spa services if you can afford them), sells insurance for cars & health.....

It used to offer telephone service too (but sold it off)....

You need to let them know they are fucking the pooch here.



Or maybe...just maybe..."government" can be a lot of things, and doesn't have to fit in your tidy little box.

[BrentWil]

74. It holds a monopoly and doesn't let others compete..

It isn't really private when private stores have to buy from them at a slight discount off of retail prices.

[Oregone]

84. Now, thats taking liberties with the truth

13% isn't a "slight discount".

If you cannot turn a profit by marking up your goods by 13%, then fuck off. You have nothing to offer the public

[BrentWil]

85. How about just let them get it from the wholesaler?

What is wrong with that? I mean, if the government is so great and all?

[Oregone]

91. What is wrong with a central body regulating a market that can be abused to the detriment of society

Anti-regulation too, are you?

[BrentWil]

93. Your argument was about it being a level playing field...

That my friend, isn't level. How is allowing stores access to wholesale liquor got anything to do with hurting society?

[Oregone]

96. They get a substantial discount

If they don't have the special stuff to level the playing field after that, then fuck them. Maybe they aren't so great afterall.


And yes, its important to regulate the sales of a controlled substance for the betterment of society.

[BrentWil]

102. That isn't regulation...

That is setting up a monopoly. There is no benefit to society of having alcohol sold by the government.

[Oregone]

104. If its a monopoly, private stores would not exist, profit, and flourish

They are also everywhere here, right along side BC Liquor stores.

Maybe you should let them know there is a monopoly and that they just can't make it! :)

Maybe you just don't know what you are talking about.

Yeah, there is a centralized marketplace for vendors to go to, which enables the government to regulate all sales of liquor directly prior to its availability to the general population.

So fuckn what? Seems to work. Private companies seem to do ok with the model. So do the public stores too.

And in the end, the province gets a lot of money that it uses to better its population. Doesn't sound so bad to me.

Your answer is to tax the little guy at the bottom of the chain, who wants to buy a half rack after slammin out 10 hours at the mill. Fuck that.

[BrentWil]

118. What is the social harm to allow wholesale purchase by private companies?

Are you getting booze cheaper then I get from Costco? Could the government simply tax it, get more revenue, and the consumer would get a cheaper product?

[Oregone]

120. You don't know what venue is buying what and who they are selling to

The bottom line is that if this model was so disastrous, then private companies would not exist. They do. The government also makes a fortune off this industry. I have universal healthcare too. How do you like them apples?

"Could the government simply tax it..."

Sin taxing the poor is your answer? No thanks. I prefer government owned industry.

[BrentWil]

123. I have health care too..

and cheaper booze... I like my apples.

[Oregone]

125. Well you got yours....fuck everyone else

Because the manifestation of the policies you embrace create market based forces that leave most out in the cold when it comes to comprehensive health care (which isn't the case in Canada).

Even with Obama's inadequate, pro-private industry reforms, people will still be fucked.

Congrats.

[BrentWil]

128. Did I say that?

I want people to have health care. I have my opinions on the best means to do that. THat is not relevant. The alcohol policy set forth makes no sense and isn't the reason Canada has universal coverage.

[Oregone]

129. Pretty much, yes

You are happy with an economic model that prioritizes profits over distribution of goods & services, as well as their quality. This results in you getting health care and many out in the cold. It works for you so you are happy with it.

"The alcohol policy set forth makes no sense and isn't the reason Canada has universal coverage. "

Canada's ability to make billions from crown assets (monopolistic and otherwise) very much helps fund universal health care

[gravity]

126. A government ran store is the same as a sales tax

The prices of the products are slightly higher in than private store so the customer has to pay more anyways. The net effects are the same more or less.

The only difference is who controls the distribution

[Oregone]

131. The private stores are government run?

Riiiight. Run along now.

[gravity]

138. It is more or less the same in terms of state revenue and prices

There are different ways of achieving the same goal. You can let private businesses run it and tax them or have a government monopoly run it.

[Oregone]

139. Or both

Because here I can go to both a government store or a private store. Each retail the same products. The private stores distribute all profits to private people (which are taxed, but they retain a good portion). The government stores distribute all profits back to the government. Crazy concept. Middle-ground can exist.

[BrentWil]

132. If the government ran distribution well

The USSR would have been fine. In fact you had huge wait times and large scale shortages.

[Oregone]

136. If private industry ran distribution so well, then everyone would have heath care

But they don't. Private industry DOES NOT CARE about 100% distribution. They care about whatever distribution level generates the most profit. If distributing to 10% of the population at a high price produces more profit than distributing to 90% at a lower price, they will choose 10% distribution.

Profit alone dictates how large the segment of society should be that should have access to a good or service.

Works miracles, don't it. Magic. Free. Market.

[gravity]

147. You are comparing apples and oranges

Some services are more efficiently distributed by the government like healthcare, welfare or defense.

Consumer goods are more efficiently distributed by the private sector

[Oregone]

150. Why? How so?

Do you have studies to show mixed-market distribution of consumers goods is less efficient than private only? Any theories on that concept? Why does allowing another consumer choice, owned by government shareholders, instantly impact distribution in a negative way?

[BzaDem]

89. I think his point is that government in this country fits the "tidy little box" FAR better than it

fits your idea of what the government should be.

(In other words, I would suspect that if you polled the country with your proposition that government should enter any industry that it can make a profit on, the country would be more or less uniformly against it. I would suspect that even a supermajority of Democrats would be against it.)

[Oregone]

92. Yes, but the US Government sucks a giant cock

So there is room for improvement

[Hempathy]

203. It's not "my" tidy little box.

It's the way the majority of the people in this country prefer it.

They generally don't want government competing with private business.

Just ask them.

[Oregone]

216. Who cares what the majority of idiots think?

If progress depended upon that, many countries would still be in the stone age.

Governments can do many things, and their functions have been shown to change constantly. Government should not be constrained to the Tyranny of the Majority.

[Hempathy]

220. The people that the idiots elect, supposedly.

I'm sure that from your perspective, things would be much easier if this were a dictatorship with you in charge...

However- it isn't. :shrug:

In democracies, governments will generally reflect the will of the majority- for good or for bad.

[Oregone]

221. Those people should be concerned about making the country a better place for their constituents...

Rather than constantly pandering to the masses at the cost of progress.



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

[Hempathy]

223. in a perfect world, maybe...but that isn't where we live.

:shrug:

But, no matter- I've only got a few more decades(if I'm lucky) of this shit to put up with, anyway.

[Oregone]

224. And by pandering to idiots, it never will be any closer to perfect

[Hempathy]

225. Oh, well...

I don't think that anybody really expects to live in a "perfect world" anyway- there's no such thing.

One person's perfection is another person's nightmare scenario. :shrug:

[BzaDem]

83. Because history shows that (for the most part) markets allocate resources more efficiently

than the government.

Markets allocate resources towards successful ventures and away from failed ventures. There is direct accountability to shareholders to produce products that customers find value in. Should a business fail to do this, they are punished by shareholders (for the most part), and the resources are directed to somewhere where they can be more efficiently used.

There are no such constraints on government-run businesses. They do not need to fight every day to produce value to survive, since the government arbitrarily allocates money to them in an amount arbitrarily defined. They can be run at a loss for a long time or perpetually, without being forced to improve by shareholders who would otherwise direct money towrads more successful ventures.

Of course, there are exceptions. Healthcare is a big one, where there is a moral obligation to provide healthcare to all. Obviously, there should be increased government control over agencies that are too big to fail (to hopefully prevent such institutions from getting to that point). And there are others.

But for the most part, the idea that companies (such as Apple, mentioned above) should be nationalized because "they produce a profit" is silly. The underlying premise (that innovation in a company that is not subject to any market forces is higher than innovation in a company that is subject to market forces) is similarly silly. Government should fund entitlements by taxing businesses that are subject to market forces, rather than creating inefficient businesses that are not subject to market forces.

[Oregone]

86. Now, thats just foolish

"They do not need to fight every day to produce value to survive"

If a company is costing the people money, the politicians funding that company get canned.

History only shows that government enterprise is so damn great that private industry salivates to get their hands on it. Just check out the Canadian sell-offs of their crowned assets. If they were shit, private industry wouldn't want them.

[BzaDem]

95. "If a company is costing the people money, the politicians funding that company get canned."

Sure, that is one possibility in the universe of possibilities that can be realized.

Another possibility is that the politicans funding that company DON'T get canned. They might be very popular for other reasons. For example, if the Democrats start many companies that cost the people money, would you really vote for Republicans (the only other choice)?

Another possibility is that the politicans funding the company get canned, and are replaced by similar politicans that hire people who run the business badly.

Yet another possibility is that the politicans funding the company are canned and replaced with politicans who hire better managers, but long after the company has ceased to produce anything of value.

In general, whether or not a politican gets canned has very little to do with the performance of one particular company of many the government is running. To the extent that performance is at all related, replacing politicans who then replace managers takes a very long time to happen, and in the meantime, the resources are being used very inefficiently.

In a market, the ONLY possibility (or at least the most likely) is that the executive (or middle management or whoever is in charge of the failure) do get canned or shape up immediately, because the shareholders WILL deny funding otherwise. There is (for the most part) no other option. Resources are allocated DIRECTLY based upon performance, at least moreso than the government -- you will not see shareholders perpetually funding a failed company. For government companies, resources are allocated towards companies very INDIRECTLY based upon performance (if at all based upon performance), and those making the allocation decisions are re-elected or not for many reasons that have nothing to do with the performance of an individual government company.

[Oregone]

97. "For example, if the Democrats start many companies that cost the people money..."

If there is no social benefit (like healthcare would have) then yes, fuck them, I would consider that when going to the polls (especially if the opposition had better plans). Politicians are there to serve, and the people should demand a positive ROI, either fiscally or socially.

[BzaDem]

99. And what if the Republicans would run that government company better, but others worse?

Let's say the Democrats want to run A well but end up running B badly. The Republicans want to run B well but end up running A badly. Who would you vote for?

Or, let's say the Democrats run both A and B poorly. But they have much better policies than Republicans outside of A and B (or any business). So there is a huge net benefit for voting for the Democrats (in terms of overall fiscal/social ROI), but a large drawback in terms of a few component companies. Then who would you vote for?

If you voted for the Democrat, you might get a better fiscal/social ROI overall, but you are allocating resources incredibly inefficiently. If you voted for the Republican, A and B might be managed better, but you would be voting for many policies I would assume you are not thrilled with.

You also haven't addressed the other scenarios I mentioned.

[Oregone]

100. Take the aggregate sum of profits and how they are reinvested for the people....

Then you have something to go on.


But the administration should have little to do with how the companies are ran. The executives do. The government should be behind the curtain, just like normal shareholders (aside from the composition of the board, that is)

[BzaDem]

103. The aggregate sum could be positive while still having HUGE misallocation of resources.

If the government were having a total loss of X in 5 industries, but the government had a total profit of X+1 in another 5 industries, the aggregate sum is indeed positive. But there is a huge misallocation of resources in 5 entire industries towards failed companies.

In a private market, all 10 industries would have companies making things of value to customers.

So even your own logic can produce very bad outcomes.



"But the administration should have little to do with how the companies are ran. The executives do. The government should be behind the curtain, just like normal shareholders."

The choice of executive (and the accountability of that executive to the government/shareholders) can often be the single most important variable in the success or failure of a company. Normal shareholders have a very high incentive to pick an executive that brings value to customers. Why? Because if they don't, they lose a tremendous amount of their own money.

In addition, the executive has a high incentive to perform, because their continued employment is the subject of demanding shareholders who have a huge stake in the outcome.

In a government business, the government has very little stake in the outcome of the business. Regardless of how you vote, people are going to base their votes on many different factors, of which the performance of business A might be an extremely small part. Should the government official get thrown out of office because of the performance of business A (which is doubtful), that government official can easily get a six figure job. They don't lose a huge financial stake of anything.

Therefore, the executive (rather than being held accountable by demanding stakeholders) is held accountable by a passive government that frankly has more important things to worry about most of the time.

In general, money is allocated most efficiently when the people ultimately in charge have a large stake in the outcome. This is true for a priate business (shareholders ultimately supervise the executive, and they have a large stake in the outcome). This is MUCH LESS true for a government business (where people, who have many other things to worry about besides politics, ultimately supervise the government, which itself has many other things to worry about and has very little stake in the performance of a business). The link between people-government-executive is MUCH more indirect and the ultimate stakeholders have very little stake in the outcome.

[Oregone]

107. Good...you can join a party that campaigns on that and fixes it for the betterment of all

Sounds so fucking terrible to have that option, eh?


"Normal shareholders have a very high incentive to pick an executive that brings value to customers."

:rofl:

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. They have the incentive to maximize profits according to their business model, which can be long-term or short-term, and depend on a host of other variables (such as the competition, if any exists). And they do this in many ways, and bringing value to customers has no certain priority (though, increasing the perception of value may).

If you think they have high incentive to bring value to customers, you are simply living in fantasy America. Its not even a point worth debating. Its equivalent to saying the sky is yellow.

[BzaDem]

115. "They have the incentive to maximize profits according to their business model"

Of course they do. And maximizing profits requires that customers willingly buy its products. In other words, customers believe a transaction where they exchange money for a product is beneficial to them, and they execute the transaction. In a competitive market (non-monopoly), customers decide which product from which company is most valuable most to them, and they then part with money in exchange for that product.

Now how exactly is this not providing value to the customer? Why would a customer part with his or her money if the resulting product was not at least as valuable to them as the money they parted with?

The product person A buys from company B might not be valuable to YOU. YOU might claim that the value person A seens in the product from company B is just "perceived value." But why should person A care about what you think? The product person A buys is more valuable to person A than the money person A parted with; this ends the inquiry as far as person A is concerned.

I would agree that the point isn't even worth debating, but this is because you are the one who is off the reservation, not me.

[Oregone]

119. Wanna buy a Chevy?

Hey, how about some drywall? Want some Tylenol? How about a complicated fradulant financial product? I can sell you some baby bottles super cheap...or how about some plastic pretend kiddie earrings. Ill throw in a bag of doggy food with that too. And if you don't want all that, I got a Toyota with your name on it.


:rofl:

Disaster capitalism kicks some fuckn ass, time after time. Its not about providing value to the customers...its about maximizing profits by cutting corners, customers be damned. Hopefully, they won't find out.

http://www.recalls.gov/

[BzaDem]

127. Now your argument is that the existance of some recalls implies that OTHER products are failures?

Surely, you would agree that most products in the US today are not under recall.

Your point now is that the failures of a small percentage of products imply that the system is broken? Because it isn't perfect?

:rofl:

In case you haven't noticed, behavior that prompts recalls (in most industries) is heavily disincentivized. Perhaps this is why the VAST majority of products are not recalled. The amount of money Toyota will lose FAR outweighs the money it would have cost them to get it right in the first place.

Obviously the financial industry is an exception, but you aren't really limiting your arguments to the financial sector now are you.

You see normal feedback mechanisms as systemic failures, so of course no system except an imaginary system is going to satisfy you (since no system except an imaginary system is without failure).

[Oregone]

133. If shoddy products and failed industries are not proof that capitalism doesn't prioritize increasing

value to customers, then you are truly living in fantasy America.

Capitalism is about increasing private profits and distributing wealth created in production to the elite. Thats it. Thats the end. Period.

[BzaDem]

142. I think the person that thinks a lack of perfection = system failure is living in a fantasy America.

[Oregone]

145. For fuck's sake....yes, the system is failing the people

Corners are cut everywhere! Regulations are cut all over the board to allow it even more. Its not about spite. Its about getting more dough to the shareholders (which is what the system is actually designed to do).

Toxins everywhere. Dangerous products abound. Stalled industries selling automobiles less efficient than decades ago. Smaller purchasable quantities for the same price

Increasing value to the consumer....my ass.

[BzaDem]

151. Of course its about getting more dough to the shareholders.

Why? Because history has shown that having the incentives aligned that way produce MUCH better outcomes for EVERYONE than having a planned or semi-planned economy. That's why it is designed that way, and why almost all progressive economists would agree that most industries (though not healthcare/etc) should remain regulated but otherwise totally privatized. This really isn't rocket science.

[Oregone]

153. "Because history has shown..."

And "history" is controlled by the upper 1% who owns the media outlets, textile mills, publishing companies, etc, who also benefit disproportionally from production on accounts of who their rich daddies were.

You get it? Capitalism is all about, from its inception, separating labor from capital and disproportionally rewarding the contributors of capital from the fruits of production. Of course the owners will continuously justify a system that treats them well...a system, mind you, that cannot stand on its own without a capitalistic crutch. "History has shown" is the equivilent of saying "a lot of rich people in the past and present keep saying", which boils down to nothing but an Argument to Authority.

BTW, Im not even much for a fully "planned economy" so much. I think there ought to be government run industries (healthcare/energy/infrastructure), government for-profits corporations competing in a mixed economy, and then private industry (insofar as it is employee owned).


"This really isn't rocket science."

And its not all cut and dry, and simple. If so, the world wouldn't be wound up in a huge cluster-fuck.

[BzaDem]

157. Speaking of 1%, you can't even find 1% of progressive economists that agree with you.

And yes, that is an argument from (a basically unanimous) authority. This is a big part of why the system is actually standing on its own wihout a "crutch" worldwide. It is easy to throw out all evidence conflicting with your worldview as concocted by the rich, but that just makes all your claims all unfalsifiable (since any evidence to the contrary is by definition a made-up conspiracy by the rich).

[Oregone]

161. Aren't "progressive" economists mostly socialists/marxist?

Or are you talking about the American ones who made it through the Milton school of hard knocks and just don't like getting asbestos in their soup?

And yes, thats an insane argument to authority/popularity.


"the system is actually standing on its own wihout a "crutch" worldwide"

Horseshit. The system operates on socialistic infrastructure, driven by an socialized-educated workforce, bailed out by socialistic coffers, with citizens slurping up socialistic entitlements the private market fails to impart on them....

Utter horseshit.

[BzaDem]

164. Socialized infrastructure, education, financial bailouts, and entitlements aren't inconsistent with

mostly private industry.

The truth is, the system operates on all those things (for good reason), AND mostly private industry. And you didn't even attempt to actually refute it. You just tried to pull in some unrelated points that I actually have no argument with to PRETEND you were refuting it. That ranks right up there with saying all evidence against your argument is a rich conspiracy, because, well, it is evidence against your argument.

[Oregone]

167. If capitalism is so great as "history" dictates, it would need none of that

And if could deliver most of those things far better than the government could. In fact, government is rarely needed in a successful capitalistic economy, because it will always impart the best of all possible worlds on its citizens.


"AND mostly private industry"

BTW, why should private industry even need to be owned by non-employees?

[BzaDem]

169. If by capitalism you mean a libertarian's paradise, history does not indicate it is successful.

I am not talking about a libertarian's paradise. I am talking about a system where most industries are privately owned. Most does not mean all. There are good reasons why education for example is public (i.e. everyone has a right to an education). Same with healthcare (which is either public or highly regulated in most of the world). Other reasons include the difficulty of having a competitive market for education or healthcare. These reasons do not apply to most industries.

"In fact, government is rarely needed in a successful capitalistic economy, because it will always impart the best of all possible worlds on its citizens."

It is true that government is rarely needed in a successful libertarian's paradise, but that is a vacuous statement because there is no such thing as a successful libertarian's paradise.

"BTW, why should private industry even need to be owned by non-employees?"

One of the major reasons capitalism (not a libertarian's paradise) is successful is because the decisions on the allocation of resources are made by people with a corresponding financial stake in those decisions. The outcome is directly connected to the input. A person who has resources to allocate will lose those resources if they allocate them inefficiently. This results in a tendency towards efficient allocation, because people who continuously make inefficient allocations will have less and less resources to allocate (and people who continuously make efficient allocations will have more resources to allocate).

[Oregone]

171. But in mixed economies, most industries are still privately owned

You seem to be against mixed competition that I am in favor of, yet it still creates a market composed of basically what you desire. Are you sure it is so wrong to have another consumer choice with non-private shareholders?


"is successful is because the decisions on the allocation of resources are made by people with a corresponding financial stake in those decisions"

So...you think people whose jobs and futures are on the line suddenly don't have a corresponding financial stake in business decisions?

[BzaDem]

173. They do have a stake, but it does not necessarily correspond.

If you lose your job, it is possible to find another job (during most times). The cost is transitional, as well as a difference in salary if negative (and difference in enjoyment).

A private investor on the other hand has at stake every penny they put in. No more, no less. The connection is direct. Everything is on the line. On the flip side, the reward is whatever the investment brings. When a business is successful, this can be large. But if it weren't large, no one would have any incentive to invest. If 75% of small businesses fail after 5 years, then the reward if successful should be around 1/.25 = 4 times the initial invested amount, or the expected return from any business venture would be negative (and people would lack the incentive to invest). The time-evolution of the market results in more successful investors being more able to continue to successfully invest/allocate, and unsuccessful investors being less able to continue to unsuccessfully invest/allocate.

"Are you sure it is so wrong to have another consumer choice with non-private shareholders?"

If an industry is such that it does not lead to a competitive market (i.e. natural monopolies, health insurance, education, etc.), then it is not wrong to have another consumer choice with non-private shareholders. But in competitive markets with many choices (which most industries have), there is no need for an additional choice, and there are negative costs due to distortion.

[Oregone]

175. "The cost is transitional"

:rofl:

Yes, losing your job, pension, benefits and the value of your company ownership, which would down-right serve as a nice retirement....well...its just peanuts.

Poor people loosing their livelihood, wealth, mobility mechanism and retirement is just peanuts compared to some born-rich fuck losing 5% of his portfolio. Are you fucking kidding me?

Now thats just more horseshit. The moment you make workers into owners, and have their future wealth and job tied to their employment, they are no longer disposable labor that can just seek a position elsewhere. They are heavily invested in a job with heavy incentives to work for its success


"A private investor on the other hand has at stake every penny they put in."

The last I checked, they call the market a casino for a reason. Most of the investor class is so rich they can lose quite a bit, but have such a diverse portfolio that it does them no harm.


"people would lack the incentive to invest"

How much incentive does one need to invest? As of now, this model provides infinite ROI on seed money. Is anything less really that devastating?


"But in competitive markets with many choices (which most industries have), there is no need for an additional choice"

But surely, if the market is doing its job, then another choice cannot possibly do much harm whatsoever. If the market is doing its job, any other choices would simply fail to gain significant market share. No harm, no foul. How could you be so against this?

[BzaDem]

177. People who lose their job do not lose their livelihood, wealth, mobility mechanism, retirement, etc.

If that were true then the answer to the question might be different. They can seek a job elsewhere, and in most times they can get a job elsewhere without losing the above. If this is not true in your proposed system, then I do not understand all the rules of your proposed system. I also do not understand how we transition to your proposed worker-owned system, which seems to be critical to determining how/when they got their stake.

Yes, some "born-rich fuck" losing 5% of his portfolio would not cause great harm to said person. But

a) This person does not WANT to lose 5%, he wants to gain. If he just threw tons of money at random ventures and lost most of it, he would be worse off. His incentive is to invest successfully, and continued unsuccessful investment will PREVENT his ability to invest in the future (since he will have no money left).

b) Your "born-rich fuck losing 5% of his portfolio" is not representative of all investors. Huge numbers of people who start small business have to put their homes on the line to even get enough credit to begin.

"How much incentive does one need to invest?"

A large incentive, because the failure rate of new startups is so high. In a (very) simplified model, if the failure rate is f, the expected rate of return if successful must be at least 1/(1-f), or the expected return overall will be NEGATIVE. For example, if f = 75% after 5 years, the rate of return if successful better be 400% or higher, or there is an expected negative return. Similarly, if f = 90% after 10 years, the rate of return if successful needs to be 1000% or higher. People do not tend to invest if the expected return overall is negative.

"But surely, if the market is doing its job, then another choice cannot possibly do much harm whatsoever."

It can do harm, because the distortion of the competitive market involved in government-fiat-allocation. It is not a level playing field. Even your financial-body scenario isn't even close to a competitive market where those that invest the money have the risk/reward, and it can produce unfair advantages for that company when competing with constrained private companies.

[Oregone]

178. They do if they own the company they work for

Remember...Im talking about a different system here...one where IRAs and 401Ks don't exist (those imply private non-employee ownership). You're retirement savings is directly dependent upon the value of the company you work for (or a diversified exchange of a few local companies). This makes retirement and mobility directly dependent upon the success of ones company. It creates a hyper-incentive for workers to strive to make their company grow.


"I also do not understand how we transition to your proposed worker-owned system"

Ive answered this below. Essentially, you create a cap for the amount of years an investor can profit from an initial investment, by simply buying back and redistributing stock.


"Yes, some "born-rich fuck" losing 5% of his portfolio would not cause great harm"

Exactly. Thats all I needed to know. Its much worse to lose your job and retirement because you voted for a shitty CEO who fucked your business over. Therefore, Id assume you'd retract what you said earlier regarding risk.


"A large incentive"

But an infinite incentive? Isn't that going over the top?


"because the distortion of the competitive market involved"

But surely, we have no proof there is even a competitive market until we have a bonafide honest player involved in the market. Hence, I simply discount that entire point, because I cannot accept competitive markets as a priori.

[BzaDem]

180. "Exactly. Thats all I needed to know."

Ya know, I did write a whole paragraph on why the system still incentivizes investors to make good investments, even if a particular investor who loses 5% of a single investment is not harmed that much. You seem to be ingoring it in favor of the soundbite.

"But an infinite incentive? Isn't that going over the top?"

I discussed below.

"But surely, we have no proof there is even a competitive market until we have a bonafide honest player involved in the market."

The government (even if its interest align with society) is not necessarily a bonafide honest player in the market, becuase the scales could be tipped towards (or against) the government in ways that are not obvious. Unintended consequences on competitive markets are inevitable when allocation decisions are made by one person or body by fiat.

Of course there is never absolute proof of a competitive market (or absolute proof of most anything). But there is usually plenty of evidence. A market in which many companies are selling similar goods in which antitrust laws (policed by the government) are not being broken is generally considered competitive. In such a market, a business cannot continually make a huge profit forever, because competitors will keep underpricing them if they try.

I have seen the "honest player" logic applied to the public option (for health insurance). This does indeed make sense there, because health insurance is NOT a competitive market. If a health insurer can control 80% of the market in a given state, it gets huge discounts from providers that the other 20% company will not get. This means it can always underprice the 20% company, which makes it get even bigger. Health insurance is in no sense a competitive market.

The market for (say) most food is pretty competitive though.

[Oregone]

182. "A market in which many companies are selling similar goods in which antitrust laws..."

I'm sorry, but I disagree. The consumers really do not know what is happening behind close doors. The prices may be favorable according to their perception, and the products also be satisfying, but thats no real indication of a competitive market; it doesn't illustrate the true potential of such market.

Patented ideas could be being bought up and shelved and competitors creating better products could be being bought out and liquidated. Capitalism doesn't always dictate that creating the better product is the best business plan; rather, sometimes it dictates that more profit can be achieved by shutting down a competitor that is creating a better product, and implementing planned obsolescence. Companies can act well within the law and still be quite cut-throat & anti-innovation.


"The government (even if its interest align with society) is not necessarily a bonafide honest player in the market"

Well if you cannot trust the government, you surely cannot trust private people concerned only about increasing their wealth, and thereby, the disparity between the rich and poor (that is the ultimate effect of the investor class benefiting disproportionally from wealth created in production).

But at least you have yet another place to turn to.

[BrentWil]

87. +10000000000000000000

[Warren Stupidity]

109. that is so 1980s

free market fundamentalists should stay away from, in fact run away from, all arguments related to resource allocation.

Take a look at Planet Capitalism. We have efficiently shit all over ourselves in an orgy of profit driven consumption that now threatens the survival of human civilization. Continuing down the path we are on is suicide.

All this 'efficient allocation' ends up socializing the backend costs while making a small group of individuals incredibly wealthy.

[gravity]

116. Efficient allocation increases productivity and lowers costs

It in itself is benefit for the economy without a costs.

In practice markets can sometimes not produce the most socially optimal result or produce negative externalities like pollution. This is easily solved by having the proper regulations and public policy to correct the markets.

If there is the proper regulation, the markets will still allocate resources as efficiently as possible given the circumstances, while limiting the negative effects.

The free market fundamentalists have it wrong because they neglect the social costs and the socialists have it wrong because the government does not allocate resources efficiently. The best types of economies are mixed ones.

[leftstreet]

117. +1

[BzaDem]

122. You are building up and tearing down a complete strawman.

I have not seen anyone on this thread who is a "free market fundamentalist." I have not seen anyone who is not in favor of regulation of markets, especially in terms of pollution. In fact, I haven't seen anyone who is not in favor of the government running certain functions.

But as far as most industries are concerned, I run toward and EMBRACE all arguments related to resource allocation. That is, to the extent that there are "arguments." In reality, there are very few arguments, because almost all economists believe that competitive markets allocate resources much more efficiently than planned economists. The point is basically undisputed.

"All this 'efficient allocation' ends up socializing the backend costs while making a small group of individuals incredibly wealthy."

While that is true for certain industries, it is complete bullshit for most. Companies in most industries are free to fail every day and bear their own costs (or their investors do). Standards of living for everyone have risen incredibly over the last 100 years in our market-based economy, and even over the past 30. This is a large part of why the point is basically undisputed by those educated about economics.

[Oregone]

124. "Standards of living for everyone have risen incredibly over...the past 30"

I guess it depends on how you define the standard of living.

We all have our LCD TVs, and a big fuckn credit card bill to show for it. Yeah, most will pay that shit down when they are done paying off their hospital bills that went to collection. But afterall, they wont find all those people who just lost their homes and changed addresses.

[BzaDem]

130. That is true even when comparing two people who do not have such a big bill.

Of course real incomes for the middle class have not gone up much lately, and many have used credit cards. This is a problem that can and should be corrected by increasing public investment/taxes/etc.

But even two people with the SAME inflation-adjusted incomes (living 30 years apart) had large differences in what their money can buy.

[Oregone]

137. "had large differences in what their money can buy"

Or rather, what their credit can buy. Credit cards are common place now, which changes many things. That said, it doesn't necessarily make people any more socially mobile whatsoever. And you can talk until you are blue in the face about fancy LCDs and "standard of living", but if your child is going to be stuck in the same dead end job as you, making the same amount a generation later, you aren't really improving your lot in life.

[Warren Stupidity]

229. more regarding 'efficient allocation of resources'

something like 95% of the material used for the production of goods is waste product. Capitalism does not 'allocate resources efficiently', not outside of economic think tank thought experiments, in the real world it is wasteful almost beyond comprehension. The whole argument is absurd, the current system floats on orgies of irrational consumption and manipulative financial bubbles.

In this country, since the mid 70's, real wages have been stagnant for decades. Household income increased only because one worker per household was replaced by two, and now even that increase has also flattened.

[MadMaddie]

49. If the company is so large that it could cause the whole

economy to tank or impact National Security then it should be broken up into smaller companies.

If a company like BP has shown to be incompetent the government should reach out to experts around the world and bring them in to work to fix the problem.

The government is not in the business to run businesses but to make sure that the businesses follow the rules set forth in that industry. If the business cannot do that then they should be fined, jailed and penalized until they can no longer be in business. This is what happens to samll businesses every day, the IRS comes in and scrutinizes tax receipts down to the penny but if it is a big corporation they basically get to continue their bad practices....

[Warren Stupidity]

50. when that industry or enterprise is essential for society and

demonstrably incapable of self management that serves that essential need. For example: the health insurance industry, the oil industry, and 'wall street' come to mind.

[tekisui]

54. When it is for "The Commons".

Roads, schools, fire departments, police departments, armies, utilities (water, energy), health care, etc.

[Oregone]

59. Are you against the police department selling a calendar to fund the commons?

Can cities not sell goods & services in competition with the private market that are not for the commons, but rather, to fund the commons?

Can the government then not engage in ownership of for-profit business to fund other entitlements and services? Why not?

[socialist_n_TN]

67. You and I think alike in this Oregone

I say LET the government get into anything they CAN get into and let the profits (probably less profits than private businesses) fund social services. I'd LOVE to see the capitalist REALLY have to compete.

[BzaDem]

108. "I'd LOVE to see the capitalist REALLY have to compete."

How is that competition?

If you have a government that can print money to perpetually fund a business in an industry, it of course will always "beat" a business in that industry that has a limited source of funding. It can always operate at a loss, so it can easily drive any limited-funds company out of business. This goes without saying.

But how is that actually competition? I thought competition BY DEFINITION entails at least a plausibly level playing field.

[Oregone]

110. And we can all pretend-up the worst case scenario of anything

Is anyone here arguing for government entities that have a bottomless pit for funds, just so they can drive private industry out of business?

Seriously?

Is that what you are thinking? Good God man. And do you think we want Kim Jong Il to be the CEO for all of them too?

[BzaDem]

112. The same logic applies to many other scenarios.

An entity with a non-bottomless, but still large pit for funds can still put the private company out of business.

In fact, even an entity with a small pit for funds above what the private sector would invest can continuously underprice its private competition. This directs resources towards an inefficient company from an efficient one.

So while I do often cite worse-case scenarios to make it clear what is possible under various circumstances, the same logic applies equally towards less-worse case scenarios.

So while your system relies on these worst-case scenarios (and similar but less-worse-case scenarios) not happening, the private market essentially guarantees that they won't happen. A system whose incentives FORCE resources to be allocated towards more efficient companies will ALWAYS beat a system based upon hope and prayer for such performance.

[Oregone]

114. And a self-sustaining, profitable entity?

Sure, right, they can pass on profits to provide cheap goods, but by doing so, they nullify the purpose of their own existence; that being, to generate public monies. So clearly, while I am advocating socialized government industry (like infrastructure/energy/insurance), I am also advocating government enterprise that is non-monopolistic and has a different purpose (and therefore, different structures that promote that purpose). Its not a one-size-fits-all approach that Im talking about here. Imagine a specialized government branch vs the government merely buying 100% of the shares of an existing private corporation.

A government owned, for-profit company should have its executives fired if they fail to make a profit, and if they are found to be leveraging their size and resources the monopolize the market, they are subject to the same anti-trust laws every other company is too.

[BzaDem]

140. Who decides how much money to allocate to a self-sustaining, profitable entity?

Either initially or when it wants to expand?

Not stakeholders who have a very strong incentive to get the proper amount right. The government, which does not have such an incentive. Even if the government DID have an incentive to allocate resources well, it (or any single private investor) does not do as good a job as a market full of investors, weighted towards those who have made good investment decisions in the past and away from those who have made bad decisions in the past. This is obviously not ALWAYS true, but history has shown that it is true in general for most industries.

And of course the government owned, for-profit company should have its executives fired if they fail to make a profit. My point is that won't happen a significant amount of the time, even though it should.

But we are going in circles.

[Oregone]

149. I'm not sure how its done everywhere in sane countries

But since I'm talking theoretically if the US ever became sane, then I can talk about some ideal policy. And ideally, it would have to apply to an independent entity (like a private bank) for financing that they must pay back on a schedule, only if they meet strict financing terms associated with achievable business plans. Now, even if government lacks the genetic gooey DNA that rich people have to tell them the magic number they need to start, wouldn't the financing body have that expertise? Even if the financing body was an independent government institution employing experts, with their own limited, self-sustaining budget, they could get the job done in terms of determining if risk was justified on a loan.


"My point is that won't happen a significant amount of the time, even though it should."

Why? A government appointed board is retarded or incompetent by some rule? Why do other countries get this right most times? Is America just down-right backwards? Are all private boards, and the executives they hire, just automatically magically yummy?

[BzaDem]

155. "Why do other countries get this right most times?"

Other countries (for the most part) keep most of their industries totally privatized. The ones that didn't in the past got this wrong most times. The fact that Canada sells alcohol is not a counterexample; Canada has most of its industries privatized just like other successful countries.

"Wouldn't the financing body have that expertise?"

No. It's basically that simple. One "body" or government or person or whatever does not allocate resources nearly as well as a market full of "bodies"/governments/people weighted by their past ability to do so successfully. Similarly, one really really smart geneticist cannot evolve the human race's genome from a one-cell organism as well as the billions-of-years process of evolution can.

[Oregone]

159. "is not a counterexample"

BC Hydro, BC Ferries, BC Lottery, BC Liquor....a ton more

Now, I could talk about BC rail and the old Telus entity...also Petro Canada, but they were so yummy that private fucks preyed upon the politicians for sweetheart deals


"It's basically that simple"

What is basically simple is the notion that Capitalism kicks ass but manifests into shit.

And "simple" in the Of Mice and Men way.

[BzaDem]

160. Are you arguing that most industries in Canada are NOT totally privatized? n/t

[Oregone]

163. No, Im pointing out a good deal of socialistic entities that do a great job and make money

Not a mere example of liquor.

Crown assets kick some ass here and are a major part of the country, delivering everything from insurance to energy to ferry rides. EVERYONE has their lives touched daily by crown assets. They are very successful and very sought after by private industry.

Thats just a fact. Its a mixed market with mostly privatization, but socialized entities play no small role. The very development of the country rested squarely on the back of a past crown asset (HBC).

You seem to be downplaying their role here...thats all. They are big money makers and quite important in the large picture of things. Its a shame when they are sold off for quick cash

[BzaDem]

170. Sure, there are a few industries where it might make more sense than others.

This is especially true when it is difficult to have a competitive market. Health insurance is a good example of this; the bigger an insurance company gets, the better deals they get from providers, which allows them to underprice smaller competitors and drive them out of business. And even for other types of insurance, there are limits to the amount of competition, since you can't just move to another insurance company 20 years after you bought it if the company doesn't pay your claim.

Natural monopolies (such as electric utilities/water) are perfect examples of industries where competition is difficult or impossible to achieve, because only one agent can own the power line/pipe/etc to your house.

You can even make a case for ferry rides that it can sometimes be difficult (though sometimes possible) to have a competitive market for ferries.

But for the vast majority of industries, competitive markets exist and allocate resources efficiently.

In other words (grossly simplified), competitive market allocation > government-run allocation > non-competitive (monopoly) market allocation.

[Oregone]

172. You see things simpler than they are and miss quite a bit....

"competitive market allocation > government-run allocation > non-competitive (monopoly) market allocation"

What about mixed markets, composed of both competitive private/public entities and monopolistic entities? You fail to mention the placement of alternative forms of ownerships, such as co-ops.

Could it be possible that the optimal model is not one or the other, but a mixed economy composed of many different types of entities? And that the optimal efficiencies in distribution and production cannot otherwise be achieved without this mix?

Does a complex middle-ground not exist?

[BzaDem]

174. I do not see the advantages to having a govt-choice when a competitive market is available

but I do see distortion-related disadvantages (compared to a competitive market). That is why I think a middle-ground would be worse.

In an industry where a competitive market is not possible, this changes.

I'm not saying that worker-owned co-ops should be banned (there are some now); I'm just saying they shouldn't be mandated. You mentioned above that private industry should always be worker-owned. How would you structure a move to a totally worker-owned system? How would such a system get off the ground?

[Oregone]

176. How do you know its a competitive market without a government choice forcing competition?

If it is a competitive market, the government option will not be able to out innovate or offer the same product cheaper. It will simply exist to show that the consumer is in fact being offered a wide array of choices in a fair market, which cannot be so bad as long as its profitable.


"but I do see distortion-related disadvantages"

What I see is scared shitless capitalists who want to skim large amounts off companies, and cut corners, without a public option keeping them honest.


"How would you structure a move to a totally worker-owned system? How would such a system get off the ground?"

Now thats actually really simple. Mandate all non-employees sell their shares back to the companies over a fixed schedule (25 years maybe). The companies purchase these shares with their profits only (rather than just issue dividends). Each year after the buyback, they redistribute them to their workers (who get dividends from remaining profits per shares they own). This allows initial investors to get a solid 25 years of return on investments, but caps the length of time someone can profit from investment (removes infinite ROI). It also sets up a retirement system for ex-workers, who can sell off their shares. There are some ins and outs (such as limited exchanges to provide security for workers), but thats it in a nutshell. Companies buying back their stock isn't an alien concept...happens quite often but for different reasons.

If a rich person wants to keep getting rich, they need to keep making good investments. They simply cant sit on the same ol wealth (in the form of shares) that they may of inherited. That will get turned into cash and sent back to them, so they gotta throw it into new industry. If this fails to spurn initial investment, you can even have multi-tiered buyback schedules (50 years for the initial investor, and 25 for the workers).

How much do you really have to reward initial start-up capital though? When does labor get sufficiently rewarded?

[BzaDem]

179. "What I see is scared shitless capitalists"

I also see scared shitless capitalists. They are scared shitless of their competitor cleaning their clock and forcing them out of business or out of a market. They in general are not scared of a government business if the resource allocation happens to be low enough to create a level playing field (or one tilted against the government), because the incentive structure of a government business for the most part will not result in better products being produced. They are scared of a government business whose funding is high enough to create an unlevel playing field, for reasons that are self-explanatory. I think that the idea that a single person or "body" can make the correct initial and continuing funding allocations decision is silly.

As for your system, I still don't understand certain parts of it. Shares are tradable until their expiration date? What happens if the company needs to get more capital? Do new shares have a new expiration date?

Regardless of the answers to these questions, two problems/questions I see are:

1. Reducing the potential reward will prevent certain investments with high potential failure rate from being made. This is not always a horrible thing, but it could be. (For example, the estate tax acts in a similar way, and the estate tax is a good policy.) I do not know enough about risk management to know the magnitude of the effect, though its direction seems clear.

2. Even if we assume your systems get the incentives right for employees to own and operate the business to the best of their ability, it could be that some of the employees of the business are simply not the best ones to make the decisions compared to outside investors (even if they tried to the best of their ability/business knowledge). The market allocates resources based upon success (regardless of intent); your system seems to eventually allocate resources based upon intent (regardless of success). Success is not always (and often is not) correlated with intent, and the success-begetting-success feedback loop of the market will not necessarily be replicated.

[Oregone]

181. Ya know whats sorta silly...

You are saying capitalists fear deep pockets because they can takeover markets and have unlevel playing fields...

Ya know...there are plenty of private companies with deep, deep pockets.

So, this argument just doesn't hold water. Introducing another consumer choice brings no threat to the market that isn't already present, in great amounts. What it does do is introduce an honest player to test (or create) real competition.


"What happens if the company needs to get more capital? Do new shares have a new expiration date?"

Why is that so complicated? If a company needs an influx of capital, and requires private investors, they should be able to issue new shares. Those shares will also be bought back according the a schedule those investors agree to. Shares do not ever expire. They are simply redistributed to other people when purchased back. Those shares must clearly be attractive enough to be a good bet.


"1. Reducing the potential reward will prevent certain investments with high potential failure rate from being made. This is not always a horrible thing, but it could be."

Yes, and it could definitely control bubbles & inflation, which is good. Unfortunately, it would be tough for people who purchased bubbled ownership already and have to sell it at a price based on real company performance (not Kramer's hype). As I said, you can always mess with the time of the repurchase, and even make it follow some type of exponential curve (so the most stock is bought later when the company theoretically grows), in order to make initial investment more popular


"2. Even if we assume your systems get the incentives right for employees to own and operate the business to the best of their ability, it could be that some of the employees of the business are simply not the best ones to make the decisions compared to outside investors "

Investors are not brilliant super-humans with super DNA. Investor hire experts to manage their portfolios. As owners, they elect board members to find executives to call the shots. Investors are simply wealthy, and mostly born that way. Most employees (working class) are not wealthy, and born that way. Nothing impedes upon their ability, as a collective group, to find "experts" to council them on decisions they perceive to be in their interests (whether that be board members, CEOs, or general consultants).

The only thing the investors really bring to the table is the capital. As for the workers, they bring the labor. The current system emphasizes rewarding the capital investment based on the notion of risk (which may not exist substantially to a diversified, wealthy investor that has infinite ROI on all other investments).

[tekisui]

111. Yes,

Yes, they can.

iI have no problem with government owenership of businesses providing for the commons. I get a little hesitant when it becomes for-profit. With profit comes a new goal. The bottom line rather than the greatest good fo the commons. It can be argued that a greater profit for a government owned business would be better. But, when profit comes in, profit rules. And, the people lose.

[Oregone]

113. Just for some clarification

When competing with the private market selling unnecessary goods & services, "the greatest good for the commons" is the most profit generated that can be used to fund the commons. Just as long as it doesn't come at the cost of outsourcing to a sweat shop that use carcinogens in the materials and take US jobs in the process, ya know. Since Im not talking about infrastructure or important services, a lot of for-profit models can be applied here with no real detriment. You are simply opening up a new venue on the market for consumers and using those funds usefully for all the people.

[tekisui]

135. I am with you.

There is a line between beneficial support and what can become exploitative nature of capitalism. I can see how the unnecessary goods and services could be for-profit and publicly-owned without being a threat to public safety or rights..

[Greyhound]

58. When an industry becomes necessary to the well-being of the nation as a whole.

For example, power. Without electric power this nation ceases to exist in a matter of days, if not hours.

Banking should never have been turned over to the leeches, and this was pointed out every time they did it.

Infrastructure construction and maintenance.

[Odin2005]

68. Only when it is a "natural monopoly", otherwise it should be run by co-ops...

...in a mostly free market with proper regulation.

Planned economies don't work.

[madville]

69. Never, I say that having experienced both sides

I have seven years in private industry and seven years working for the federal government in the same field. It is ridiculous how much the government wastes in resources and manpower compared to a private business. I always use this comparison when talking to people "a private business has four people doing the job of ten and the government has ten doing the job of four" That's my personal experience, the government is way too top heavy in it's workforce, supervisors supervising supervisors lol

[Oregone]

71. But what if the government/people were merely the shareholders of a corporation

And the executives operated like other executives with the same corporate hierarchy? You know...thats entirely possible.

Checkout some of these, that do operate like that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_corporations_of_Canada

[madville]

79. I should have been more specific

I work for a company that contracts to the federal government doing the same job as when I worked for them. We have four people easily doing what it took ten people to half-assed do when on the government tit. Sorry, i don't care for the gravy train like many of the lazy fucks i used to be trapped with, they of course loved it because why would they want to actually work for a living?

[Oregone]

94. Ancedotal experiences are not rules

I have my own. There are a range of models. Some work. Some do not.

[BrentWil]

77. As is mine..

The government needs to get its core functions right... not try to do more then it can.

As far as making the society more just, the simplest plan is to cut checks to poor people for Health Care, Education, etc.

[Oregone]

80. "The government needs to get its core functions right"

Government doesn't have a universal set of core functions. All governments change and evolve, just as the US Government has been doing for a century.

[subsuelo]

88. It should run any industry providing basic needs n/t

[alfredo]

134. National security, and only if it is an essential to our survival, or if they (as an industry)

are committing acts of treason against us.

[Starry Messenger]

141. The military should be entirely privitized.

You guys could use a little healthy competition. Also merit pay.

[Kalun D]

162. Yeah

We need more Blackwater indiscriminately killing civilians and raping co-workers, and collecting 10 times the Army wage.

We need more Halliburtons' charging $30 for a rotten hamburger


What the deficit isn't bad enough for you?

[Starry Messenger]

168. Yes, and if we could work in vouchers like Capt. Brent

advocates for education then I'd be satisfied:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8458134

The OP chopped at my profession for hours this week and then coughed up the fact in an intro thread that he is currently serving in the US military. He was pretty fucking cavalier about the implications of privatization for my branch of the government. Sauce for the gander and all that. :hi:

[BrentWil]

185. At your profession?

How is changing the structure of the Education system chopping at your profession? I place great value on good teachers.

[Starry Messenger]

188. So how about privitizing the Military?

Free Market competition will be good for it. Let a thousand Blackwaters bloom. Everyone knows there are tons of bad soldiers. The Free Market could eliminate that problem, right?

[BrentWil]

189. Didn't work so well in the Feudal age...

The state not have a monopoly on the use of violence is dangerous. A democracy has to keep control over its military, otherwise it could be at risk of being overthrown.


What I would support, however, is a smaller military with less military spending. The current position of US ground troops around the world is pointless, IMHO.

And I would also say there are certain uses of contractors within the military that make sense. There may even be some uses for private security firms, like black water. I could imagine them contracted out by the US to protect a UN humanitarian mission in a place like the Sudan. Using US forces would be politically costly and the UN can't generally get the job done when it comes to security. However, the way they have been used in Iraq, such as to protect convoys, was and remains a mistake.

If you think I am lock step military, you don't understand me. I have changed a lot since I finished college. I have my views and the party I belong to. I am a Democrat because I agree with them the most, not because I move lock step with the left wing.

[Starry Messenger]

190. Nonsense

Look at our profound military failures in the wars we're in now. It obviously isn't working as a government run program. If it was working the way it was supposed to, there should be closer to a 100% success rate. Why aren't we winning these wars when we are paying so much money for them? The taxpayer deserves the chance to control the results. Your branch of the government is floating tons of wasteful and bloated expenditures that would be better spent locally. Let the customer decide. We'll take the amount of money spent by each state and divide it up by each taxpaying citizen of each state. Then that person can decide which private company will benefit best from his tax dollars. This competition will foster a healthy market that should show improvements almost immediately.

[BrentWil]

192. Do you not think there are billions of waste within DOD?

Believe me there are. I have seen $50K dollar a piece HESCO barriers used as sidewalks in Iraq on some larger fobs. It is a very wasteful enterprise and in the case of Iraq, one we shouldn't have been involved in. (In the case of Afghanistan, one we should be less involved in) If there is no bottom line, there is little concern about cost. I have seen that throughout the federal government.

However, don't be silly. Offering a federal program to empower the poor is in no way a threat to you or your profession. The government needs to find the most cost efficientive way to meet its goals. If the goal is to get more resources and choice to the poor, I think I offered my opinion on how best to do that. I don't think I undermined your profession. I have taken my academic knowledge and my professional knowledge and offered an opinion, and backed it up with facts.

[Starry Messenger]

193. Privitizing the military will definitely empower the poor!

I think parents should be able to help their young soldiers with the power of choice. Why are you against choice? We can eliminate all of those rotten soldiers that are so hard to get rid of who promote a culture of failure in the military. Why should there be a salary hike with career promotions? It obviously just enforced mediocrity. We can do better if each soldier is empowered to improve his stats with more merit pay, which could be partially funded with voucher money. I'm not saying we need eliminate the government military at all and there are a lot of good soldiers. But why should our tax dollars be wasted on propping up all the bad ones?

[BrentWil]

195. Well one practical reason is because the customers we generally serve, do not want it..

In other words, a military fights and kills people. Even if it is not killing people, it provides enforcement of security. There is not a way to make a voucher system work in a competitive environment. The other party doesn't really want to be killed nor do the they generally have the funds to pay for security enforcement. In fact they have an economic and personal reason to resist efforts that do evolve the first reason to use military force.

On the other hand, parents generally want kids to be educated. Providing choice for them creates more of an economic market. This should increase the quality of the serve.

If the product is death, I am not understanding how to create an economic market for it. Could you explain?

Thanks


PS. Hopefully, you do know I am simply amusing myself at this point with this line of "debate" of yours.

[Starry Messenger]

197. You seem sensitive about this.

:shrug: I think we can means-test it and see if it works in selected communities. The military does so much more than just killing people of course. The public has an interest in selecting the services they find most desirable. I don't see these services being provided in my community, so obviously the government run military is an abject failure. Who could promote any other organization in business with such an outstanding failure rate? We should have won that war in Iraq four years ago. I, as a citizen, am sick of the mediocrity you are encouraging. I am a customer who wants privatization of the military. I'm thinking of starting a new think tank, Americans for Military Freedom. I think citizens of this country deserve empowerment over their military tax dollars. Why are you against choice?

[BrentWil]

199. hahah...

Okay, how do you create an economic market out of security? Hey, I am down. How will it work. What is the voucher amount, what does the taxpayer get for it, how is the market regulated, etc.

[Starry Messenger]

200. The market already exists

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Private_Military_Corporations

We wouldn't have to have any expensive start-up costs. The voucher amount can be easily determined by the totals calculated on this website. http://www.mibazaar.com/costofiraqwar/ Like I said, we take each total for each state and divide it up by tax-paying citizen. It's a tidy sum! My state is number one, I see. I definitely have an interest in having more control over that money.

The parents of poorer communities would be empowered with a higher amount of voucher money to determine what services they wish to see in their communities. There is a large need for security and the other highly skilled talents of a trained privatized military, with some assistance from the public military of course. The services rendered will be determined by the desires of a free market and customer demand.

[BrentWil]

201. I got you can divide the amount of the DOD budget by taxpayer and there are firms out there..

But like I said, what does the taxpayer get for his payment to the company? Can conservatives get together, fund something, and attack Iran, for example? Will it be under the control of those who give the money to them? What if a group of taxpayers wishes to overthrow the government?

It would eliminate a lot of waste, IMHO.

[Starry Messenger]

210. The taxpayer gets freedom of choice

They can choose to take their voucher to fund the services their community needs most. Aren't there military police, firemen, radio operators, doctors, etc.? The possibilities are endless. Many poor communities of color suffer a dearth of these kinds of services so this would be a big boost to their buying power with a nice fat voucher. Why do you want to deny them that choice? It would be easy to create a consumer market place in just the neighborhoods I'm thinking of. Americans for Military Freedom can easily make the case that there is rampant overspending and a culture of mediocrity that could be improved by informed consumer decision making, especially since the military takes so many members of its young citizens with little in return.

[BrentWil]

211. Still didn't answer me question...

Can citizens put together the vouchers and put together a force capable of attacking another state or overthrowing the government? If not, how do you prevent this?

[Starry Messenger]

217. Who said we wanted to prevent it?

I'm sure it could have a lot of flexible applications in the hands of the taxpayers. We couldn't do any worse than the high failure rate your organization is already offering.

[BrentWil]

219. While I agree that your voucher program offers a means to prevent governmental waste

I cannot support it because it provides groups within the United States to overthrow the government and conduct wars in other states. To me the cost benefit analysis is clear.

However, I am happy that you are now a capitalist.

[Starry Messenger]

222. You don't trust communities of color with their own army division?

How sad. :shrug: I would think a man of your proclivities could see several practical applications. Sounds to me like you don't trust the taxpayer to make an informed choice.

[donco6]

209. I'm sure some are your Bestest Friends. n/t

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

236. It seems some gays are his Bestest Friends too.

If you catch my drift.

I'm keeping this thread kicked so people can see the suspicious timing.

[BrentWil]

186. They do merit pay for certain skills..

such as certain languages.

[Oregone]

143. "A very simple question for DUers"

You've adamantly stated your case. You hate socialism in many respects. So are you really asking a question, or opening a venue to spout capitalistic propaganda?

[Starry Messenger]

144. You must have missed the opening act:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8437436

[Oregone]

146. I was one of the first replies....just forgot it

DU...new center for capitalistic propaganda--at the height of disaster capitalism of all times.

[Starry Messenger]

148. Ah, gotcha.

I didn't want to open it again to do a head check. :) Yeah, as another poster I know once said "LEAVE CAPITALISM ALONE!!!!1111" is becoming a louder and louder cry. Can we hope they are getting a little worried?

[BrentWil]

184. hahahahahahahahahahah......

If you didn't notice, the world and the poor are getting better because of Capitalist forces. Look at the improvement in China and India. In fact I would argue the world is moving towards capitalism not away from it, look at Europe. Sweden for example is moving in the same direction.

Do I think that the government as a moral role in limited redistribution of wealth in order to protect the poor and stop some of the excess of a capitalist state? Absolutely. But the system as a whole works.

[Soylent Brice]

191. amateur hour at DU again.

:popcorn:

[donco6]

208. Or maybe just bored - they've already captured the flag everywhere else.

They have to have *something* to do.

[William Z. Foster]

156. all industries already are

None of our industries could exist without the government - the state itself, and the infrastructure. I would be happy to go into great detail about this, if you question that.

None of our industries could exist without the working class. Are we on the same page there, or do you doubt that?

Most technology and innovations being made and sold by industry owe a large debt to publicly funded research and our public education institutions and government programs. Again, there is much supporting documentation on this one if you are unclear about it.

So in a very real sense, all industries are being "run" by the working class people and the government, and are entirely dependent upon the working class and the government for their very existence, let alone for their profiteering. It then becomes a matter of who controls them? Those who have invested all of the truly valuable essentials - the government and the working class people - or those who have inherited or cobbled together capital for the purpose of leveraging and skimming wealth from the work of others?

The only question is this: who should benefit? The many or the few?

What say you?

[Oregone]

165. All good points

[William Z. Foster]

166. thanks Oregone

Have seen many good posts by you recently, and have meant to comment. Keep up the good work.

[laughingliberal]

205. +1000 nt

[Kalun D]

158. Whenever It's an Inherent Monopoly

Monopolies are an antithesis to democracy

Things like power companies where there is only one power line.

Things like cable TV where there's only one cable.

things like water and sewer

The Oil companies shouldn't be government run but they should be broken up like Bell Telephone in the 80's.

They have become so consolidated that they are virtual monopolies due to collusion and price fixing.

the White House isn't ever going to do it, because this is a corporate owned admin

[inna]

183. "The Oil companies shouldn't be government run" - why not?

Serious question.

[Kalun D]

232. I Suppose

At this point it might be better to have them run by the government. If you look at how profitable they are then you have to realize with those profits comes power. The power to buy up the politicians and it turns into a snowball of corruption.

Either way I think you are going to have problems, there's just too much money involved.

[ThomWV]

204. Good answer

[donco6]

206. When will people wake up to being manipulated by shills?

That's what *I* wanna know.

[Cleita]

226. I think basic necessities like the police and fire department, which are

obvious, as well as roads and infrastructure, but also basic health care and utilities, things that everyone needs access to for survival. I also have always believe that extraction industries like mining, oil, lumber and what comes from the earth should be government owned and run for the reason that those assets belong to the people and should be run by the people with laws and regulations to make sure that they are done as they should be and not for private profit. The profit should go to the people to pay for social programs and infrastructure. The products can be sold on the open market to refineries, mills and entities who process the materials once they have been harvested and I have no problem with those businesses being in the private sector down the line to retail.

[jdp349]

233. When the economy of scale of the industry is such...

in order to maximize operational efficiency an institution that is "too big to fail" and serves a sufficiently vital role to the public I think the public sector should be involved to whatever degree most efficiently remedies the situation such that social welfare is maximized.

Also when the positive or negative externalities involved in production result in an under or over production of a good the government should seek to take advantage of obvious potential pareto optimal moves when possible.

If a good is non rival and/or non exclusive and truly a public good in which case little to no private industry would be expected to exist this also and obvious area in which government enterprise should step in which of course they do. The best example of course is defense, security and law enforcement.

[ThomThom]

237. The problem with your post is the word run. If you mean day to day

management, then really only the military, government offices and the post office. If you mean regulate and oversight that is everything from utilities to oil companies. The government is responsible for maintaining the commons, making sure unsafe products don't reach the market place and private business has safe working conditions. I think your question too broad and vague to answer.