|
In fairness, the possibility for a political faction in government that wants to get rid of a government-run company manipulating law and policy to kneecap it is a threat that isn't directly analogous to anything private companies generally face. (eta: I missed the post before this one, but imv the issue isn't comparable to managerial malfeasance exactly because the members of Congress aren't the managers of the USPS.) The comparable situation would be for some segment of the shareholders to consistently and intentionally vote for board members and business decisions that harm the company. Since shareholders have to buy their votes, though, they have a direct stake in the company doing well that, say, Republicans in Congress don't have in the USPS doing well. It could happen, but probably not as easily. But this is a specific pitfall rather than a general limit to the potential effectiveness of government-run companies. Absent such meddling they could still do well.
GunnerJ fucked around with this message at 01:28 on Sep 10, 2016 |
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 23:26 |
|
|
Yeah, I generally believe the era of social democracy/embedded liberalism to be over and not worth specifically fighting for, because a very wide portion of the voting public views privatization to be a good thing in almost every situation. From their perspective, they're not wrong, even though it involves loving over the working class. And because privatization brings in their investment and hence growth, in the long run, it does indeed benefit everybody... but the long run is very long indeed, and we could have had similar numbers if these opponents didn't hamstring nationalized industries every step of the way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
Caros posted:No no, they totally deserve their pensions. Yeah it's the old saying, "Republicans say the government sucks, then they get elected and prove it"
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I mean I'm not making any claims as to whether the USPS should be run as a state owned business. But it is, and is a counterexample to the idea of efficient and profitable state owned businesses. No, it isn't. USPS is leaps and bounds better than both FedEx and UPS, despite being hobbled by GOP legislators, despite being hobbled by having to provide regular service to customers in the middle of nowhere, and despite societal changes reducing the importance of printed mail. Case in point, UPS and FedEx pay the USPS to deliver hundreds of millions of packages every year because no one does ground delivery better (and likewise, the USPS pays UPS and FedEx for air delivery). The USPS does all of this while paying its employees much more than its competitors and without receiving any tax dollars. "But they suddenly began losing money for a few years because of lovely legislators" is not an effective argument against the efficiency of the USPS.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Well, the examples I can think of generally don't seem to run terribly well. Amtrak, Conrail. USPS has been losing money every year for a while now. Amtrack was never meant to be a robust government service. After the government spent several decades pouring endless bucketloads of money into passenger rail's biggest competitors (airports and highways), said rail companies finally collapsed in the late 1960s. Amtrak was created as a government program that would consolidate their corpses into one megazombie which could then be mercifully killed. (This never happened because Amtrak keeps just enough people happy that, like the zombie that it is, it's proven impossible to truly kill.) This is also why Amtrak has no reliable source of funding, and has to beg for whatever scraps Congress feels like tossing it every fiscal year.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I mean if we are talking no market vs market it's gotta be gov bureaucrats right? ...do you think the lady who took your picture at the dmv is Mao Zedong?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:Amtrack was never meant to be a robust government service. After the government spent several decades pouring endless bucketloads of money into passenger rail's biggest competitors (airports and highways), said rail companies finally collapsed in the late 1960s. Amtrak was created as a government program that would consolidate their corpses into one megazombie which could then be mercifully killed. (This never happened because Amtrak keeps just enough people happy that, like the zombie that it is, it's proven impossible to truly kill.) This is also why Amtrak has no reliable source of funding, and has to beg for whatever scraps Congress feels like tossing it every fiscal year. Dont forget that its legally mandated to run unprofitable services! AND it had to get special permission to reinvest revenue from its only profitable section (the North-East Corridor) back into it to improve service instead of being used to mostly subsidize the other routes. And thats not even getting in the topic of whether it should even be a for profit company in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
Caros posted:On top of the pension system issues (which is the only significant reason USPS is losing money) this would still be a stupid loving example. Exactly this. If USPS wasn't required by law to do last-mile delivery to literally everywhere, while also both working to keep consumer costs low -and- being backstabbed repeatedly and deliberately by legislators who are desperate to prove that only privatized services are worthwhile, they could and would eat the lunch of every delivery company on the continent without trying. The Mail infrastructure is -really goddamn good-. Like getting a physical package from a Up A Goddamn Hill Eastern Washington to Tampa in under a week for seven bucks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
State-owned companies are vulnerable to people voting in conservatives to wreck them. Therefore you should vote in conservatives to wreck them now to avoid this vulnerability in the future.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
Communist Zombie posted:Dont forget that its legally mandated to run unprofitable services! AND it had to get special permission to reinvest revenue from its only profitable section (the North-East Corridor) back into it to improve service instead of being used to mostly subsidize the other routes. paragon1 posted:You're right, there's also the internet and a congressional moratorium on them following the example of some other countries postal systems by offering additional services to make up for revenue lost to email. Both of which would also wreck the poo poo out of them if they were privately owned. Wow we should definitely make all companies subject to the whims of Congress. Sounds like it's worked so far.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Wow we should definitely make all companies subject to the whims of Congress. Sounds like it's worked so far. Well if we stopped electing people who agree with you to Congress...
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Wow we should definitely make all companies subject to the whims of Congress. Sounds like it's worked so far. This is an interesting statement in that it's unclear how "we" would do any such thing except through Congress, implying the possibility that the national legislature might not only cease being hostile to government-run companies, but openly supportive of them. In which case...
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Wow we should definitely make all companies subject to the whims of Congress. Sounds like it's worked so far. Wow, a disingenuous post with no point from Nitrousoxide! Such a rarity! Surely we are blessed. Take it all in folks, we will surely never see its like again! Sustained, long-term political efforts by people in alignment with your garbage views on government aren't "whims" you loving tool. And the best part! YES! IT HAS WORKED! The post office performs goddamn amazingly in light of what is required of it. It's a modern loving marvel, in spite of Republican idiocy. Why, in the name of all that isn't loving retarded in the world, would we want to shift to it being responsible to a bunch of completely unaccountable shareholders and board members? paragon1 fucked around with this message at 03:57 on Sep 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:This is an interesting statement in that it's unclear how "we" would do any such thing except through Congress, implying the possibility that the national legislature might not only cease being hostile to government-run companies, but openly supportive of them. In which case... Even supposing it did, and that state owned companies could be profitable, why would you assume that Congress would work "for the people" instead of pandering to local constituents to prop up business operated by the government in their districts and trying to sabotage competing ones run by the government elsewhere? There incentives are all there, just same as they are now for rent seeking by the private sector. The only difference would be the government would have more direct access to the levers to gently caress with them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 03:58
|
|
|
Honest question that I am 100% positive you haven't even remotely considered, Nitrousoxide, as it is against your religion : Why is it good for a government run company to be profitable, as opposed to an indicator that it is providing unnecessary costs to consumers?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 04:10
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Honest question that I am 100% positive you haven't even remotely considered, Nitrousoxide, as it is against your religion : NO has forgotten that nonprofits exist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:NO has forgotten that nonprofits exist. Despite the name, nonprofits can, and usually do make a profit. It's called a net income surplus and the difference is it must be reinvested in the company and not distributed to shareholders.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
I love that his solution to "assholes in Congress are loving up something for their own selfish reasons, but the thing still works really well and would work even better if they'd stop it" is to get rid of the thing that they are harming rather than blame the assholes who keep trying to send it down the plughole. He blames government for everything but when BIG GOVERNMENT WORSHIPPERS!!1!!1 say "Here is a thing in government that we too find worrisome!", he says to privatize the thing despite any logic to the contrary. It's more offensive to his faith-based approach to economics to have the government run something than to kneecap the people in government who are trying to gently caress everything up because their If I told Nitrousoxide that "I have a sweet, loving dog who my neighbour keeps kicking because he hates dogs" he would tell me to shoot the sodding dog. You are just further proof of my theory that anyone with an avatar containing some green-haired, huge-breasted anime bint is a total wanker, literally and figuratively. Please kindly fall a long way and come to an abrupt stop on your head; nothing of value would be damaged, I'm sure. Edit: Pronoun trouble
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Even supposing it did, and that state owned companies could be profitable, why would you assume that Congress would work "for the people" instead of pandering to local constituents to prop up business operated by the government in their districts and trying to sabotage competing ones run by the government elsewhere? Why am I obliged to suppose that they be profitable? I don't give a gently caress about them being profitable. I give a gently caress about them working. In this context, the threat to them working is hostile political factions intentionally undermining them. Why do you think I am assuming "that Congress would work 'for the people'"? I'm doing no such thing. I'm noting the oddity of talking about what "we" should do when it comes to government operation of companies on a federal level while also acting like Congress is some weird alien hive ship without any connection to our own political agency. But check it out: "we" can't do anything like put companies under government control without these things called "laws" passing. Congress has a pretty critical role to play in "laws" being made, as it turns out! So do we have any control over the composition of Congress? If so, then when you talk about some "we" enacting these policies, you're talking about voters electing enough legislators to put those policies into place. At which point the threat of Congress becoming hostile to government-run companies and sabotaging them resolves to the threat of voters turning against them, not "Congress bad." Do we not have any control over the composition of Congress? If so, then how are "we" going to put anything "under its control," even if we thought that was a good idea? While we're at it, we may as well get a better legislature. I'm not interested in the rest of your goalpost-moving garbage, sorry. GunnerJ fucked around with this message at 04:49 on Sep 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:I love that his solution to "assholes in Congress are loving up something for their own selfish reasons, but the thing still works really well and would work even better if they'd stop it" is to get rid of the thing that they are harming rather than blame the assholes who keep trying to send it down the plughole. He blames government for everything but when BIG GOVERNMENT WORSHIPPERS!!1!!1 say "Here is a thing in government that we too find worrisome!", he says to privatize the thing despite any logic to the contrary. It's more offensive to his faith-based approach to economics to have the government run something than to kneecap the people in government who are trying to gently caress everything up because their Please tell me how you plan to stop congressmen from engaging in rent seeking to buy votes from their local constituents when companies are owned by the state. I'd love to hear it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 04:47
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Please tell me how you plan to stop congressmen from engaging in rent seeking to buy votes from their local constituents when companies are owned by the state. You haven't proven that this would actually be a problem at all. JustJeff88 posted:
You'd better not be smack talking Lum there, fucko. (Someone in ADTRW spent like a thousand dollars giving random people avatars of the same character.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Please tell me how you plan to stop congressmen from engaging in rent seeking to buy votes from their local constituents when companies are owned by the state. you can't buy votes once currency is abolished, friend.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:you can't buy votes once currency is abolished, friend. The thought experiment was: state owned, competing business that exist in a market with money. And you can buy votes via jobs for your constituents.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:
A bribe of questionable value, once labor is optional.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 05:04
|
|
|
Isn't "winning public support by creating infrastructure and opportunities in their state" exactly what politicians are supposed to do? Is "pumping stock prices with shortsighted decisions then cashing out and letting the fallout take the town down with it" somehow better
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
The Norwegian government created good jobs in their state oil company and invested the profits in the future of their country, how awful of them to buy votes like that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:The thought experiment was: state owned, competing business that exist in a market with money. There would be no reason for the state owned businesses to compete with each other directly. Also Congressmen and state and municipal governments already do all sorts of things to bring both public and private jobs to their states. That's practically all that some of the "pro-business" candidates run on. So the ratio between the two shifts, big deal. At least you won't have to cut the public jobs a bunch of tax breaks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:A bribe of questionable value, once labor is optional. Okay. You're right, full communism now. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 05:09
|
|
|
dang pups, you're really good at this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 05:10
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Despite the name, nonprofits can, and usually do make a profit. It's called a net income surplus and the difference is it must be reinvested in the company and not distributed to shareholders. There is no "usually". There are an incredible variety of nonprofits out there, and it's awfully blithe of you to dismiss them all as being cash-rich business monsters. You've clearly never worked with any small, local nonprofits have you? The ones that desperately scrounge for grants and donations so they don't have to turn away people (or animals, since nonprofit animal shelters are ubiquitous across the US)? Most nonprofits aren't Harvard University or the American Red Cross, for gently caress's sake. And since we're talking about nonprofits in the libertarian thread, it's time to quote this old classic: President Kucinich posted:In all my years of doing charity work, I have never once, not a single drat time, run across a libertarian/objectivist run charity. Not one libertarian kitchen counter, not a single one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:There is no "usually". There are an incredible variety of nonprofits out there, and it's awfully blithe of you to dismiss them all as being cash-rich business monsters. I worked for a legal aid non profit for about 6 months out of law school helping people handle debt collectors.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I worked for a legal aid non profit for about 6 months out of law school helping people handle debt collectors. You being a law graduate explains so much. I'll bet you... nothing, actually, I have negative money in my account right now, on account of being poor  But it's the thought that counts: I bet you that either (a) pro-bono work was required for your license, so you had no choice (b) or it was the only job you could get, so you had no choice or (c) the legal aid clinic was an extension of your school, and therefore not dependent on donations, and created primarily to funnel graduates through so they could claim alumni were "employed in the law industry" on their pamphlets.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 05:24
|
|
|
Pro bono work is not required for my license. It was the only job i could find, but I also graduated in the middle of the great recession so I was not alone in that. The legal aid clinic preceded my law school so it was dependent on grants and donations. I won't deny the school used it to pump up employment numbers though. Nitrousoxide fucked around with this message at 05:40 on Sep 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Okay. You're right, full communism now. Wrong, we won't need crude communist frameworks of class conflict once the bourgeois is disempowered and the means of production bestowed upon the benevolent and sterile mechanisms of the state down with vanguardist swine PupsOfWar fucked around with this message at 05:52 on Sep 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Even supposing it did, and that state owned companies could be profitable, why would you assume that Congress would work "for the people" instead of pandering to local constituents to prop up business operated by the government in their districts and trying to sabotage competing ones run by the government elsewhere? By libertarian logic, this would never happen because the voters in that district would see the Congressman doing that and would vote him out of office
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 06:33
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Information is encoded about the supply chain, demand for the good, and competition through their affect on the prices charged along the way. Imagine, raw materials get rarer without a change in demand, this already gets encoded via a higher price that the raw material producer figured out back at step one in the supply chain. A port is out of commission due to a hurricane? Prices for shipping have risen due to fewer places to dock, or more effort needing to be put into shipment to get it to you via less ideal paths. Something to keep in mind is that there's no reason to do everything at the very last second in a planned economy. Businesses want to have as little inventory as possible because that's money just sitting around that could be used elsewhere more productively. Since inventory is so low, things need to be reordered or manufactured on short notice. Things are in a perpetual state of near-crisis, with everyone trying to anticipate the fluctuations in demand. I can see how you could look at that and see it as being more responsive to human needs than some dry dusty system of central planning could ever be, but when you look at the bigger picture you see that all that complexity boils down to each person needs X number of toilet paper rolls in a year, Y number of shirts, etc. These numbers aren't changing significantly all the time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 06:37
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:By libertarian logic, this would never happen because the voters in that district would see the Congressman doing that and would vote him out of office I believe the argument is that they keep reelecting him because they are benefiting, and this is bad because only the rich should benefit from industry and infrastructure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
NO2, you really need to stop focusing on the idea that government run businesses need to generate profit. See, this is the problem with capitalism. Everything is about profit, to the detriment of society. You try to measure companies by "efficiency". Efficiency at what? Making money? A company which is good at making money isn't necessarily a company that is good at providing goods or services to its customers. See my previous derail about Games Workshop. Or see the more recent and better example of medicine companies preferring to keep on the tried and true sulpha rather than invest in penicillin. A government service would measure success and efficiency, not by how much money it makes or saves, but how many people it serves, or how often it's stated objective is met. Corporations care about money before people. Social programs are concerned with people over money. Tell me again which is the better system.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 06:48
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I believe the argument is that they keep reelecting him because they are benefiting, and this is bad because only the rich should benefit from industry and infrastructure. Only the business owner would benefit, as opposed to the vast majority of other people in that district who would not benefit
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 06:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 23:26 |
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:The thought experiment was: state owned, competing business that exist in a market with money. So politicians would be incentivized to fight for jobs for their constituents directly instead of competing to see who can give the most corporations the biggest tax breaks so that whoever debases themselves the most can be chosen by the grace of the free market? The benefits of political competition would go directly to the people rather than passing through capital? Yes, I can see how this would be a huge issue in our brave new economy 
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 07:02
|
|
