US trying to privatise the USPS [Archive]

Judicator

13th September 2011, 05:27

The USPS should be reformed into a direct democratically controlled organization that has electronic money transactions and a public email service. And, the constitutions would prevent any government searches.

Also, the USPS isn't a government monopoly. It is a public option. We already have private options in the form of FedEx and such. And, it is not funded by taxes. It also is constitutional.

So.....why try to bring it down? It is fine, and it works. All I would do is just modernize and democratize it.

The USPS has the exclusive right to deliver first class mail. It's illegal for anyone else to. That's a monopoly. Look up Private Express Statutes:"The United States Congress originally passed the PES in 1792, under powers granted it in the United States Constitution to "establish Post Offices and Post Roads". The PES created a governmental monopoly on the carriage and delivery of letter mail, and ensured that this monopoly can be enforced."

I would be fine leaving it as a public option (let's see if it would work then lol) if private companies were permitted to deliver non-urgent first class mail, but they aren't. The issue isn't that it's a public option...it's the ONLY option...and remains so because the government prevents competition.

RGacky3

13th September 2011, 07:31

The USPS has the exclusive right to deliver first class mail. It's illegal for anyone else to. That's a monopoly.

Yes its a publicly accountable monopoly and it works :).

The issue isn't that it's a public option...it's the ONLY option...and remains so because the government prevents competition.

Thats not the issue at all, they are trying to privatize it, not ament the constitution.

Judicator

14th September 2011, 03:16

Yes its a publicly accountable monopoly and it works :).

If it worked there would be no need to ban other companies from competing.

Thats not the issue at all, they are trying to privatize it, not ament the constitution.

The problem is that the post office is permitted to be inefficient because it has exclusive rights to a single market.

RGacky3

14th September 2011, 08:17

If it worked there would be no need to ban other companies from competing.

Actually its the constitution. Article 1, section 8 clause 7. But it obviously works, if we compare packages (be mature now), and not letter mai, where competition is allowed.

The problem is that the post office is permitted to be inefficient because it has exclusive rights to a single market.

Except .... its pretty damn efficient ... If you want to amend the constition thats one thing, I have no problem with allowing competition, but privatizing is another thing.

Judicator

15th September 2011, 01:20

Actually its the constitution. Article 1, section 8 clause 7. But it obviously works, if we compare packages (be mature now), and not letter mai, where competition is allowed.

The ban on competition isn't in the constitution, which is my primary issue. "To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;"...nothing about competition.

Except .... its pretty damn efficient ... If you want to amend the constition thats one thing, I have no problem with allowing competition, but privatizing is another thing.

First I would allow competition. Then get rid of the funding requirement claimed in the OP's video which puts the post at an arbitrary disadvantage. Then there would be no need to debate the merits of privatization, we could just observe which worked. Of course the post office would have to remain unsubsidized.

Klaatu

15th September 2011, 01:49

But the postal service is a SERVICE. It isn' the business of the government to do things that that private sector does (and does better.) Get politicians out of things like this.

The post is required under the U.S. Constitution.

Mailing a letter via USPS costs only pennies. That's because the state does it more efficiently than any money-grabbing capitalist can.
(no taxes, no profit, no $100-million CEO, etc)

Besides, government workers work harder than "private-parts-scratching" companies do! :D

Leave delivery services to UPS and FedEx and DSL.

Signed: Bud Struggle--a UPS customer for all his business needs.

Privatize and then watch prices go way up. (can't do this anyway because it would be unconstitutional.)

Privatize NOTHING. Nationalize!

Klaatu

15th September 2011, 01:53

The ban on competition isn't in the constitution, which is my primary issue. "To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;"...nothing about competition.

First I would allow competition. Then get rid of the funding requirement claimed in the OP's video which puts the post at an arbitrary disadvantage. Then there would be no need to debate the merits of privatization, we could just observe which worked. Of course the post office would have to remain unsubsidized.

HELLO! --- There is competition already (and the money-grabbing capitalists cannot compete)

Do you realize that YOU subsidize $100-million CEO pay?

Judicator

15th September 2011, 01:56

HELLO! --- There is competition already (and the money-grabbing capitalists cannot compete)

This is factually wrong - it's illegal for FedEx to deliver non-urgent first class mail.

Do you realize that YOU subsidize $100-million CEO pay?

Subsidies for firms subsidize anything the firm buys, be it a $100 million CEO or a $1bil office or whatever.

Klaatu

15th September 2011, 02:44

This is factually wrong - it's illegal for FedEx to deliver non-urgent first class mail.

FedEx and UPS do deliver message parcels... and it costs a bundle. (gotta feed those $100-million CEOs!) :drool:

Subsidies for firms subsidize anything the firm buys, be it a $100 million CEO or a $1bil office or whatever.

As the FedEx/UPS user, YOU provide that subsidy. YOU are therefore the sucker. :p

Klaatu

15th September 2011, 02:52

National interests are easily served by private industry.

What "national interests" are these... price-gouging private capitalistic monopoly and oligopoly?

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

Local communities don't have to sell the land to the Walmart. Walmarts are accountable to their customers who could shop elsewhere.

My own town tried like hell to keep WalMart OUT, but failed, because WalMart had a local judge on their payroll.

Judicator

15th September 2011, 06:28

FedEx and UPS do deliver message parcels... and it costs a bundle. (gotta feed those $100-million CEOs!) :drool:

Not first class mail. You cannot send a regular letter with FedEx. This is because they are legally forbidden from doing so:

"The United States Congress originally passed the PES in 1792, under powers granted it in the United States Constitution to "establish Post Offices and Post Roads". The PES created a governmental monopoly on the carriage and delivery of letter mail, and ensured that this monopoly can be enforced." (Private Express Statutes Wiki)

As the FedEx/UPS user, YOU provide that subsidy. YOU are therefore the sucker. :p

What? Consumers buying products is not subsidies. As a US taxpayer, I provide a subsidy to whoever gets gov't handouts.

What "national interests" are these... price-gouging private capitalistic monopoly and oligopoly?

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

Remaining a rich country, for one. You can avoid the monopoly problem with fairly mild regulation.

My own town tried like hell to keep WalMart OUT, but failed, because WalMart had a local judge on their payroll.

What did the judge do? Force you to sell your land, or overturn your (probably unfounded) legal challenge to walmart setting up shop?

RGacky3

15th September 2011, 09:04

The ban on competition isn't in the constitution, which is my primary issue. "To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;"...nothing about competition.

The argument is (according to the coarts), that the constitution gives the government to right to extablish post offices and so on exclusively.

Anyway, thats not the issue here, the issue is privitization.

Not first class mail.

Thats bullshit, first class only means priority to deliver over second class. Private delivery services can prioritized their parcells however they want.

BTW its not like letter mail is such a HUGE buisiness now, its not like allowing letters would boost private mails profits.

Do you really think that UPS, if ONLY it was allowed to deliver paper mail, would run the USPS out of buisiness?

What? Consumers buying products is not subsidies.

Sure it is, the only difference is market consumtion leaves most of the power in the wealthies hand whereas public spending makes it democratic.

Remaining a rich country, for one. You can avoid the monopoly problem with fairly mild regulation.

Yeah because it worked out so well for other countries that privitized a bunch :laugh::laugh::laugh:, and the countries that socialized and unionized are in the shitter, common now.

Force you to sell your land, or overturn your (probably unfounded) legal challenge to walmart setting up shop?

Why should'nt communities have a right to decide what is and what is no allowed in their community? Why should'nt democracy trump property?

Klaatu

16th September 2011, 02:00

What? Consumers buying products is not subsidies.

You may not CALL it a "subsidy," but the effect is the same.

As a US taxpayer, I provide a subsidy to whoever gets gov't handouts.

Have YOU ever been unemployed through no fault of your own?

Remaining a rich country, for one. You can avoid the monopoly problem with fairly mild regulation.

(A) Reduction and elimination of all regulation is the ultimate goal of conservatives. So much for that idea.

(B) The U.S. economy has been, and is still being, decimated by conservative policies.

What did the judge do? Force you to sell your land, or overturn your (probably unfounded) legal challenge to walmart setting up shop?

A town has a right to keep out nefarious businesses (strip clubs, dope houses, etc) WalMart qualifies as a nefarious business.

DinodudeEpic

16th September 2011, 02:20

(A) Reduction and elimination of all regulation is the ultimate goal of conservatives. So much for that idea.

(B) The U.S. economy has been, and is still being, decimated by conservative policies.

Actually, conservatives differ on economic goals. Some want a regulated economy(Christian Democrats, some Conservatives), but more of subsidies and empowering the government over the businesses.

American conservatives are mostly unique in their want for laissez faire markets.

Judicator

16th September 2011, 04:31

You may not CALL it a "subsidy," but the effect is the same.

Subsidies create totally different incentives. A company is not required to produce a commercially viable product to receive subsidies

Have YOU ever been unemployed through no fault of your own?

I don't know whose fault is it if I don't get job offers?

(A) Reduction and elimination of all regulation is the ultimate goal of conservatives. So much for that idea.

(B) The U.S. economy has been, and is still being, decimated by conservative policies.

A) Nope. They definitely want to regulate religion into schools and regulate the gays out of the country.

B) Hard to say, given that conservatives spend about as much as liberals, so the tax impact of their policies are equally damaging.

A town has a right to keep out nefarious businesses (strip clubs, dope houses, etc) WalMart qualifies as a nefarious business.

Nefarious to whom? The shoppers at wal mart? The patrons of the strip club?

Thats bullshit, first class only means priority to deliver over second class. Private delivery services can prioritized their parcells however they want.

BTW its not like letter mail is such a HUGE buisiness now, its not like allowing letters would boost private mails profits.

Do you really think that UPS, if ONLY it was allowed to deliver paper mail, would run the USPS out of buisiness?

But they can't deliver the same kind of letters that the post office does. It's illegal.

If it's not a big deal, what's the harm in allowing competition? If you're right and there's no private money to be made, nothing would happen and we'd have the status quo.

Sure it is, the only difference is market consumtion leaves most of the power in the wealthies hand whereas public spending makes it democratic.

So you are now saying consumer purchases are in fact all government dollars? Subsidies, by definition, are govt money.

Yeah because it worked out so well for other countries that privitized a bunch , and the countries that socialized and unionized are in the shitter, common now.

China privatized half of the country and that worked pretty well for them.

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

16th September 2011, 04:48

They privatized Japan Post a few years back. It's a big bank now. Everything got way more expensive. And I've heard the working conditions are much worse. There is a debate going on in parliament to re-nationalize it.

IIRC this privatsation was only partial, i.e. the company was "corporatised" or "companised", but I think ownership is still nominally held by the state and has yet to be sold (as is the case of JRF, JR Shikoku, JR Kyushu and JR Hokkaido [because they are not really particularly profitable], and I don't remember if NEXCO was actually sold). One of many idiotic ploys of the Koizumi government, trying to hard to be like his beloved Nakasone, destroyer of Kokutetsu- They should re-nationalise the railways already. 300% fare increases aren't pleasant.

The Swedish Post was similarly treated with a deregulation and "privatisation" in the sense of being made to operate under "market conditions" and so on, with similar results; worse working conditions and increasing costs and less reliable service. Ironically one of the main competitors is the foreign arm of the Norway's formerly national post service...

RGacky3

16th September 2011, 08:23

But they can't deliver the same kind of letters that the post office does. It's illegal.

If it's not a big deal, what's the harm in allowing competition? If you're right and there's no private money to be made, nothing would happen and we'd have the status quo.

I don't think there is any harm, but its not like these companies are gunning to mail paper letters :laugh:, but I don't care if there is competition in paper letters or not.

So you are now saying consumer purchases are in fact all government dollars? Subsidies, by definition, are govt money.

The end result, for the consumer is hte same, either they pay more private services, or they pay less for public services.

BTW, THE USPS DOES NOT GET SUBSIDIES.

China privatized half of the country and that worked pretty well for them.

Not really, the major industries are still mostly state controlled, they juts opened themselves up for foreign investnment, you throw billions of dollars at anything it will give it a boost.

Klaatu

17th September 2011, 00:52

Subsidies create totally different incentives. A company is not required to produce a commercially viable product to receive subsidies

I don't see where that really matters. Like I said, you buy a product from a 'top-heavy' company, you subsidize their dead weight.
It isn't just about GOVERNMENT, either. Many private companies are so filthy-profitable, they can afford this dead weight. And YOU pay for it.

I don't know whose fault is it if I don't get job offers?

Suppose you have worked for twenty years at company A, being a loyal contributor, and one day they tell you: "sorry, Joe, we have to let you go." You are one of our best workers, but we can get cheaper labor.

A) Nope. They definitely want to regulate religion into schools and regulate the gays out of the country.

B) Hard to say, given that conservatives spend about as much as liberals, so the tax impact of their policies are equally damaging.

Well I will have agree on those two points. They dislike regulation, unless it is their own. And they are big spenders (imperialistic military)

Klaatu

17th September 2011, 00:54

I am going to address this Walmart problem separately:

Nefarious to whom? The shoppers at wal mart? The patrons of the strip club?

(A) Walmart is one of the largest, most powerful corporations in the world. (strike one)
(B) Walmart crushes union organizers and tramples on workers' rights (strike two)
(C) Walmart steam-rolls over their suppliers and local small businesses (strike three)
(D) Walmart receives generous taxpayer subsidies (that's how they got rich in the first place! (strike four)
(E) Walmart sells nothing but cheap low-quality imports (anything domestically-made here? (strike five)
(F) Walmart (the Walton family) are cheapskates. They are non-philanthropist. I wonder if they even pay taxes?

I thought it was "three-strikes-and-you're-out" (not so with Walmart, they just keep on taking.)

Klaatu

17th September 2011, 00:59

China privatized half of the country and that worked pretty well for them.

Sure when there are no health and safety rules, no environmental regulation, no decent wage, no American-style oversight... of course... it's a privateers' paradise: if worker A dies, simply replace him with worker B. And dump that toxic waste into the lake when no one is looking.
And "when-in-doubt-ship-it-out."

This is hardly a comparison to the Amercan way. Nice try.

Judicator

17th September 2011, 07:31

Sure when there are no health and safety rules, no environmental regulation, no decent wage, no American-style oversight... of course... it's a privateers' paradise: if worker A dies, simply replace him with worker B. And dump that toxic waste into the lake when no one is looking.
And "when-in-doubt-ship-it-out."

This is hardly a comparison to the Amercan way. Nice try.

This is of course compared 1970s China, a socialist paradise, where there were worker safety rules aplenty. Regulations and high environmental quality are luxuries enjoyed by rich countries...but you have to become rich first to implement them.

Anyway, I'd hardly say there are no health and safety rules. They plan to execute the people who put melamine in milk.

I don't see where that really matters. Like I said, you buy a product from a 'top-heavy' company, you subsidize their dead weight.
It isn't just about GOVERNMENT, either. Many private companies are so filthy-profitable, they can afford this dead weight. And YOU pay for it.

It matters because you can choose very quickly to stop buying the product. If a reasonable number of people think this, the company collapses quickly. Look at Netflix - their stock fell 50% because they screwed up their pricing.

Government subsidies, on the other hand, can continue as long as the bureaucrats like, regardless of how much waste they generate. No private individual is going to "subsidize" ethanol if it's more expensive than gas, but government will do it all day long, leading to misallocated farmland and wasted resources.

Suppose you have worked for twenty years at company A, being a loyal contributor, and one day they tell you: "sorry, Joe, we have to let you go." You are one of our best workers, but we can get cheaper labor.

So that company would obviously rather people be cheap than good. This isn't the case in all industries, but why shouldn't the company be able to decide the price/quality balance it needs?

Stuff about walmart

None of these are reasons why Walmart is bad for consumers in a particular place it opens its doors. If you don't want cheap imports, don't buy them. Everyone evidently prefers imports to overpriced domestic shirts. Walmart putting pressure on suppliers and local competitors lowers costs for consumers.

Well I will have agree on those two points. They dislike regulation, unless it is their own. And they are big spenders (imperialistic military)

At least we agree on something.

Klaatu

18th September 2011, 00:31

"This is of course compared 1970s China, a socialist paradise, where there were worker safety rules aplenty. Regulations and high environmental quality are luxuries enjoyed by rich countries...but you have to become rich first to implement them."

Anyway, I'd hardly say there are no health and safety rules. They plan to execute the people who put melamine in milk.

Wait a minute here. you just said "there were worker safety rules aplenty" back before capitalism, when they were NOT rich.
And they're executing these guys only because of the bad publicity coming out of the U.S.
_________

"It matters because you can choose very quickly to stop buying the product. If a reasonable number of people think this, the company collapses quickly. Look at Netflix - their stock fell 50% because they screwed up their pricing.

Government subsidies, on the other hand, can continue as long as the bureaucrats like, regardless of how much waste they generate. No private individual is going to "subsidize" ethanol if it's more expensive than gas, but government will do it all day long, leading to misallocated farmland and wasted resources."

(A) that's why I shop at local SMALL businesses (no $100 million CEO)
(B) most corporations ARE RICH due to government help, subsidies, favoritism, loopholes, etc
I am just drawing an analogy to the term "subsidy." This is not necessarily only a government thing.

_____________

"So that company would obviously rather people be cheap than good. This isn't the case in all industries, but why shouldn't the company be able to decide the price/quality balance it needs?"

My point is that people shoved into the mudhole after steadfastly building up senority, deserve unemployment compenstion and job re-training.
In Japan, a worker can get lifetime employment.

____________

"None of these are reasons why Walmart is bad for consumers in a particular place it opens its doors. "

Walmart is the epitome of what is wrong with American capitalism.

"If you don't want cheap imports, don't buy them. Everyone evidently prefers imports to overpriced domestic shirts. "

Cannot even buy modernately-priced U.S. made clothing anymore. Don't have a choice. As for "overpriced," yes, high-end designer New-York/Paris high fashion clothing IS overpriced. But these are not what ordinary folks shop for anyway.

"Walmart putting pressure on suppliers and local competitors lowers costs for consumers. "

And forces them out of their high-paying jobs. And the quality is junk. And the safety factor (e.g. lead in childrens' toys) is dubious.

Judicator

18th September 2011, 01:35

Wait a minute here. you just said "there were worker safety rules aplenty" back before capitalism, when they were NOT rich.

Wait a minute here. Sarcasm.

most corporations ARE RICH due to government help, subsidies, favoritism, loopholes, etc
I am just drawing an analogy to the term "subsidy." This is not necessarily only a government thing.

Most corporations are rich in spite of profligate government spending. Some corporations that get a lot of press attention (defense, banks) are the exception rather than the rule.

If you're drawing an analogy then say it's like a subsidy, don't say it's a subsidy.

My point is that people shoved into the mudhole after steadfastly building up senority, deserve unemployment compenstion and job re-training.

Firing is hardly "shoved into the mudhole." Why should anyone be compensated for getting fired. If you are fired because you screwed up, thats your fault. If you are fired because of poor economic conditions, thats what savings are for.

Walmart is the epitome of what is wrong with American capitalism.

If i say it in bold it makes it true!

Cannot even buy modernately-priced U.S. made clothing anymore. Don't have a choice. As for "overpriced," yes, high-end designer New-York/Paris high fashion clothing IS overpriced. But these are not what ordinary folks shop for anyway.

False. www.americanapparel.com

And forces them out of their high-paying jobs. And the quality is junk. And the safety factor (e.g. lead in childrens' toys) is dubious.

If Walmart products were so terrible, then the mom and pop stores next door would still be in business, because people wouldn't be shopping at walmart. But they are shopping at Walmart because they prefer it.

RGacky3

18th September 2011, 07:44

False. www.americanapparel.com (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.americanapparel.com)

Went bankrupt.

citizen of industry

18th September 2011, 11:18

This is of course compared 1970s China, a socialist paradise, where there were worker safety rules aplenty. Regulations and high environmental quality are luxuries enjoyed by rich countries...but you have to become rich first to implement them.

Good point - that explains in part why socialism has not been greatly successful in developing countries, and must be global. The wealth is there, it is just concentrated in under 20% of society: http://u4ya.ca/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/conley_champagne_distribution.png

It matters because you can choose very quickly to stop buying the product. If a reasonable number of people think this, the company collapses quickly. Look at Netflix - their stock fell 50% because they screwed up their pricing.

True, but what I consume is limited by the choices the market offers me. I can stop buying one product but then I have to consume another. Holding companies have a grip on the entire market. There are very few small proprieters left. Why? Because they can't compete with massive corporations who can undercut them. And most people will always choose a cheaper product because they are making substinance wages and try to put a little away for when they get laid off.

Government subsidies, on the other hand, can continue as long as the bureaucrats like, regardless of how much waste they generate. No private individual is going to "subsidize" ethanol if it's more expensive than gas, but government will do it all day long, leading to misallocated farmland and wasted resources.

Corporations, whose only motivation is profit, don't like to invest in things without a guaranteed return. This explains our reliance on fossil fuels. Development of renewable energies depends on investors, of which there are few willing to take the risk.

So that company would obviously rather people be cheap than good. This isn't the case in all industries, but why shouldn't the company be able to decide the price/quality balance it needs?

Because society is comprised of all the companies and the people working in them. The company is interested in getting the most labor for the cheapest price. If there is no regulation, society becomes impoverished and working conditions become unbearable. Take a look at the industrial revolution. A good, hard look. Might I suggest looking at child labor here.

None of these are reasons why Walmart is bad for consumers in a particular place it opens its doors. If you don't want cheap imports, don't buy them. Everyone evidently prefers imports to overpriced domestic shirts. Walmart putting pressure on suppliers and local competitors lowers costs for consumers.

I have to buy them, because they are all I can afford.

Judicator

18th September 2011, 19:33

Good point - that explains in part why socialism has not been greatly successful in developing countries, and must be global.

It doesn't work in single countries, so we need more of it!

True, but what I consume is limited by the choices the market offers me. I can stop buying one product but then I have to consume another. Holding companies have a grip on the entire market. There are very few small proprieters left. Why? Because they can't compete with massive corporations who can undercut them. And most people will always choose a cheaper product because they are making substinance wages and try to put a little away for when they get laid off.

If people had subsistence wages were only sufficient to buy stuff at walmart, nobody would have been shopping at the overpriced local stores in the first place.

Corporations, whose only motivation is profit, don't like to invest in things without a guaranteed return. This explains our reliance on fossil fuels. Development of renewable energies depends on investors, of which there are few willing to take the risk.

Corporations invest in things with high expected profit. There's always risk (thus the cost of equity). Development of renewable energies by for-profit companies requires very high fossil fuel prices. Currently they aren't high enough.

Because society is comprised of all the companies and the people working in them. The company is interested in getting the most labor for the cheapest price. If there is no regulation, society becomes impoverished and working conditions become unbearable. Take a look at the industrial revolution. A good, hard look. Might I suggest looking at child labor here.

Some specific individuals become/remain impoverished, society becomes rich.

I have to buy them, because they are all I can afford.

You bought (more expensive) stuff before Walmart opened.

piet11111

18th September 2011, 19:49

I have never seen a privatized business that managed to give better service at a lower cost to its clients but if anyone here can provide an example i would be very interested to read about it.

I know plenty of privatized businesses that managed to do a lot worse at much greater cost though.

citizen of industry

19th September 2011, 02:41

It doesn't work in single countries, so we need more of it!

It hasn't ever been realized. Every time a little seed is planted capitalist nations do everything in their power to subvert and destroy it. You are a nationalist, who promotes the exploitation of labor overseas to enjoy a few scraps of the table of the wealthy in your own country.

If people had subsistence wages were only sufficient to buy stuff at walmart, nobody would have been shopping at the overpriced local stores in the first place.

Real wages have dropped dramatically as the workforce is privatized, loopholes are created in labor law and unions are busted by corporations. My Grandfather was able to shop at local stores because he had a decent wage, job security and benefits. Very few people have that luxury these days

Corporations invest in things with high expected profit. There's always risk (thus the cost of equity). Development of renewable energies by for-profit companies requires very high fossil fuel prices. Currently they aren't high enough.

Which is why it has to be done on government initiative.

Some specific individuals become/remain impoverished, society becomes rich.

A few people become ridiculously wealthy, while the majority are able to purchase an ever dwindling share of society's wealth.

You bought (more expensive) stuff before Walmart opened.

No, less stuff maybe, of a better quality, but not more expensive.

Judicator

19th September 2011, 04:08

Real wages have dropped dramatically as the workforce is privatized, loopholes are created in labor law and unions are busted by corporations. My Grandfather was able to shop at local stores because he had a decent wage, job security and benefits. Very few people have that luxury these days

The question wasn't where people shopped 30 years ago or how wages have moved in the past 30 years, it was: where did people in the specific local community shop immediately before Walmart opened?They had to shop somewhere, and if they could afford it immediately before Walmart opened, then they could still afford it, but instead preferred to shop at Walmart.

Which is why it has to be done on government initiative.

If the costs don't justify the benefits, its a bad investment no matter who does it.

few people become ridiculously wealthy, while the majority are able to purchase an ever dwindling share of society's wealth.

During the industrial revolution, the *share* of their income may have fallen, but their real income rose. So (for example) they went from $400/month to $800/month, while national income tripled. You're claiming these people are "worse off" despite the fact that they can now buy more staple foods, better housing, schooling, etc. You'd prefer shared mediocrity to imbalanced growth?

No, less stuff maybe, of a better quality, but not more expensive.

If it wasn't more expensive you'd still be shopping at the mom and pop store. Walmart competes on price lol.

citizen of industry

19th September 2011, 04:26

During the industrial revolution, the *share* of their income may have fallen, but their real income rose. So (for example) they went from $400/month to $800/month, while national income tripled. You're claiming these people are "worse off" despite the fact that they can now buy more staple foods, better housing, schooling, etc. You'd prefer shared mediocrity to imbalanced growth?

During the industrial revolution, 6 year old kids worked 12 to 18 hour days, 6 days a week while families were crammed in unsanitary hovels by the dozen. The mortality rate was appalling, as were the incredibly unsafe working conditions, and utter lack of schooling, which eventually improved when workers began to organize and strike for better conditions. That's what happens when corporations aren't regulated.

I'd prefer a more balanced share of society's wealth. A native American had a complete share of societies wealth, and was happy to boot. The amount of wealth society creates means nothing if most people can't afford it. And even if they can afford it, how much happier does rank consumerism make you? I buy what I need, and have very few "luxuries," the small amount of spending money I allow myself goes to books, beer and a night out at a restaurant once in awhile. I actually don't shop at Walmart, but I do know they own a portion of large department stores and shopping markets here in Japan, so I can't really not choose to shop at walmart, unless I want to grow my own food and make my own clothes.

Klaatu

19th September 2011, 04:45

Judicator

"Most corporations are rich in spite of profligate government spending. Some corporations that get a lot of press attention (defense, banks)
are the exception rather than the rule.

If you're drawing an analogy then say it's like a subsidy, don't say it's a subsidy."

You don't understand the fact that MOST large, successful U.S.corporations get some form of taxpayer subsidy. It IS the rule. Do some research.

"Firing is hardly "shoved into the mudhole." Why should anyone be compensated for getting fired. If you are fired because you screwed up,
thats your fault. If you are fired because of poor economic conditions, thats what savings are for."

I did not say "fired" I said laid-off. a.k.a. Lost your job "through no fault of your own" (go back and read my post)

"If i say it in bold it makes it true!"

got your attention didn't it?

"If Walmart products were so terrible, then the mom and pop stores next door would still be in business, because people wouldn't be

shopping at walmart. But they are shopping at Walmart because they prefer it."

You really don't get it, do you.

_

RGacky3

19th September 2011, 08:42

You bought (more expensive) stuff before Walmart opened.

But people were paid more ... and communities had local buisinesses and local economies.

If people had subsistence wages were only sufficient to buy stuff at walmart, nobody would have been shopping at the overpriced local stores in the first place.

Except Walmart and walmart like enterprises push down wages.

Judicator

20th September 2011, 05:07

But people were paid more ... and communities had local buisinesses and local economies.

Consider the size of the labor market in the region Walmart serves; Walmart is a tiny fraction of that market...not enough to significantly impact the incomes of these people. If anything, their incomes effectively go up because of the cheap products. Before, you could buy some organic eggs from your farmers market for $3, now you can get them at walmart for $1.

Except Walmart and walmart like enterprises push down wages.

See above.

RGacky3

20th September 2011, 06:47

Klaatu

21st September 2011, 02:59

Not sure if some of you right wing "laissez faire" drones realize that WalMart gets rich via taxpayer subsidy, crushing of union(collective bargaining), crushing of small business, crushing of suppliers (lessons learned from the Detroit Three Auto Companies)

In short, if you support WalMart, you support Fascism and Organized Crime. This is the harbinger of the future of American business: Obey and Comply, lest you be destroyed and eaten.

PhoenixAsh

21st September 2011, 03:15

What is the issue here? An institution is in decline because its customers have other and cheaper options.

Would a socialist system continue to deploy resources in an area where it is not as urgently needed? We are constantly told "no, they would not" so here is an opportunity for socialists to put their money where their mouths are, so to speak.

Privitisation has NEVER made anything cheaper for he public nor did it ever make products a better quality.

The ONLY argument for privitisation is that you want to allow a small group of induviduals to profit from exploiting venues that should be cheaply if not freely provided by raising the prices and reducing the services and the quality of those services.

Your whole argument hinges on the false premisis that competition makes products cheaper and better and that argument is flatout disproven by reality.

PhoenixAsh

21st September 2011, 03:18

Consider the size of the labor market in the region Walmart serves; Walmart is a tiny fraction of that market...not enough to significantly impact the incomes of these people. If anything, their incomes effectively go up because of the cheap products. Before, you could buy some organic eggs from your farmers market for $3, now you can get them at walmart for $1.

See above.

Bullshit argument since this is not true considering wages have been actually declining for the past decades in actual purchasing power of induviduals.

Wallmart has an overall 19% marketshare in retail in the US...that is pretty fucking huge...and does influence the branche and sector.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_40/b3852001_mz001.htm

To cite a particularly noteworthy one, this staunchly anti-union company, America's largest private employer, is widely blamed for the sorry state of retail wages in America.

Thats Business week 2003...hardly a socialist organisation. So they flatout disagree with you.

O..and in case you were wondering:

On average, Wal-Mart sales clerks -- "associates" in company parlance -- pulled in $8.23 an hour, or $13,861 a year, in 2001, according to documents filed in a lawsuit pending against the company. At the time, the federal poverty line for a family of three was $14,630.

Judicator

22nd September 2011, 04:06

But when Walmart drops wages, its big enough to where Target will to, and so will Macys and so on, also in a lot of the small towns Walmart is a big part of the economy.

Competition makes it so that wages are dropped around the board, unless you have unions preventing it.

The drop in wages for the entire regional low-skilled labor market will be trivial in terms of it's ability to induce shoppers to go to Walmart, compared to the price difference you pay at Walmart for basics vs. the price you would have paid at whatever stores preceded them.

Not sure if some of you right wing "laissez faire" drones realize that WalMart gets rich via taxpayer subsidy, crushing of union(collective bargaining), crushing of small business, crushing of suppliers (lessons learned from the Detroit Three Auto Companies)

In short, if you support WalMart, you support Fascism and Organized Crime. This is the harbinger of the future of American business: Obey and Comply, lest you be destroyed and eaten.

Organized Crime, lol? It's not like Walmart is going to small businesses and demanding protection money.

The tax breaks are a trivial percentage of revenue...something like 0.25%...look at those margins!

Brooklyn residents actually WANT a Walmart. http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stories/144899/ny1-exclusive--new-yorkers-warming-up-to-walmart--poll-finds .

Klaatu

22nd September 2011, 04:26

Judicator

22nd September 2011, 05:27

So we're required to post PROOF of our knowledge of capitalist criminality? Well here, HUGO:

WAL-MART'S TAX AVOIDANCE SCHEMES
How Wal-Mart’s Pursuit of Lower Taxes Has Cost States and Their Communities Millions
http://walmartwatch.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/2/files/pdf/tax_avoidance_schemes.pdf

First, all great arguments to simplify the tax code.

Second, it's absurd to think a company that generates $420 billion in revenue remains profitable because of "millions in tax breaks." On top of that, lots of these subsidies look like are local city councils giving money to Walmart to encourage Walmart to open its doors near them. It's no surprise that local governments, who probably give all kinds of incentives to all businesses, end up giving some of that to Walmart. If you have 500 very large stores in the country, this adds up.

Klaatu

23rd September 2011, 01:43

First, all great arguments to simplify the tax code.

Second, it's absurd to think a company that generates $420 billion in revenue remains profitable because of "millions in tax breaks." On top of that, lots of these subsidies look like are local city councils giving money to Walmart to encourage Walmart to open its doors near them. It's no surprise that local governments, who probably give all kinds of incentives to all businesses, end up giving some of that to Walmart. If you have 500 very large stores in the country, this adds up.

When a city or state gives 'favored tax status' to any private business, the community suffers loss of services (police, fire, etc) or the residents must pay more tax themselves. This is all the while where the capitalist business itself laughs all the way to the bank (I'm not just picking on Walmart here - I think this "tax-favored" status needs to be abolished all together)

Judicator

24th September 2011, 00:30

When a city or state gives 'favored tax status' to any private business, the community suffers loss of services (police, fire, etc) or the residents must pay more tax themselves. This is all the while where the capitalist business itself laughs all the way to the bank (I'm not just picking on Walmart here - I think this "tax-favored" status needs to be abolished all together)

If they bestow this status only to induce the business to come to their community, then it's a gain in tax revenue, which is good for the community.

Klaatu

24th September 2011, 00:45

If they bestow this status only to induce the business to come to their community, then it's a gain in tax revenue, which is good for the community.

Not necessarily. I think it was the town of Charleston, WV allowed new Walmarts to actually KEEP ten years' worth of state sales tax revenue for themselves. And even if the private business finally does start paying taxes, the original monies lost can never be recovered. Someone has to pay, and it is the ordinary citizen taxpayer.

The capitalist pockets the loot and scoots. The capitalist pockets the cash and the consumer gets the trash.

Judicator

24th September 2011, 01:27

Not necessarily. I think it was the town of Charleston, WV allowed new Walmarts to actually KEEP ten years' worth of state sales tax revenue for themselves. And even if the private business finally does start paying taxes, the original monies lost can never be recovered. Someone has to pay, and it is the ordinary citizen taxpayer.

The capitalist pockets the loot and scoots. The capitalist pockets the cash and the consumer gets the trash.

So you agree it benefits the community (purely from a taxation POV) a lot of the time, just "not necessarily." Okay, sure.

I didn't know cities could unilaterally circumvent state sales tax laws, but that's cool.

Klaatu

25th September 2011, 03:32

So you agree it benefits the community (purely from a taxation POV) a lot of the time, just "not necessarily." Okay, sure.

I didn't know cities could unilaterally circumvent state sales tax laws, but that's cool.

You might have misunderstood. I assert that this policy harms the community.

kapitalyst

28th September 2011, 01:25

Thank you, Skooma! :lol:

The spin and BS obviously knows no bounds...

Revolution starts with U

28th September 2011, 02:14

Why it shouldn't surprise you that Kapitalyst thanks a post that says "i didn't watch the video but..." By Revolution Starts with U

Answer: He's a right winger. They're not really interested in facts, which obviously have a leftist bias :lol:

RGacky3

28th September 2011, 07:15

The drop in wages for the entire regional low-skilled labor market will be trivial in terms of it's ability to induce shoppers to go to Walmart, compared to the price difference you pay at Walmart for basics vs. the price you would have paid at whatever stores preceded them.

Well theres an easy way to figure that out, compare actual wages buying power, which has been flatlined, and more unemployment, while corporate profits have soared.

Robert

28th September 2011, 22:51

How odd that an avatar of a robot appears right under Judicator's last post.

Klaatu

29th September 2011, 03:29

How odd that an avatar of a robot appears right under Judicator's last post.

Gort watches for evil-doers (he is watching Republicans right now)

~K

Robert

29th September 2011, 03:36

Ha. Yeah, maybe, but check your in box.

Judicator

3rd October 2011, 05:28

You might have misunderstood. I assert that this policy harms the community.

Your claim then is that these communities involuntarily give walmart tax benefits, or that they deliberately harm themselves?

Well theres an easy way to figure that out, compare actual wages buying power, which has been flatlined, and more unemployment, while corporate profits have soared.

Again, walmart isn't the US macroeconomy. Walmart's sales are far larger than its labor costs and its margins are relatively low, so the savings it passes on to consumers are going to be far larger than its impact on the labor market.

RGacky3

3rd October 2011, 08:21

Again, walmart isn't the US macroeconomy. Walmart's sales are far larger than its labor costs and its margins are relatively low, so the savings it passes on to consumers are going to be far larger than its impact on the labor market.

Wallmart is part of the US macroeconomy and other companies like them are the rest.

Some of the savings it passes to consumers, most it passes to profits, but overall wages will be flatlined, infact they are, and its impact on the labor market is HUGE, not only internally but overseas as well.

JFB.anon

6th October 2011, 13:51

What? It was run terribly, I'm surprised legislators haven't been rectified into action sooner. It doesn't goddam mean that the government should give it to some business who'll jack up the prices and pay the workers*.

*shite, that is.

RGacky3

6th October 2011, 13:54

What? It was run terribly, I'm surprised legislators haven't been rectified into action sooner.

Heres how you fix it, get rid of that stupid rule that no other company has to follow that they have to pay pensions 75 years into the future.

danyboy27

6th October 2011, 14:22

We recently had a postal strike in Canada and let me tell you, has someone who have to deal in a daily basis with various private and public shipping buisness, the postal service is both extremely cheap and efficient.

People could argues about the cost of heavy package shipping price, but to ship private documents and letter, the post office in both canada and the U.S is the best alternative around.

RGacky3

6th October 2011, 14:24

Yup, so when private industry can't compete what do they do? They buy politicians to try and make public industry unreasonabally burdened with regulation and raise their cost.

citizen of industry

6th October 2011, 14:47

Came across this website today: www.SaveAmericasPostalService.org (http://www.SaveAmericasPostalService.org)

A law passed in 2006 requires the USPS to pay off a 75-year liability in only 10 years to "pre-fund" healthcare benefits for future retirees, costing the USPS $5 billion a year and forcing it into bankruptcy.

Planned privatization includes eliminating Saturday service and laying-off 120,000 employees. That says it all right there.

Judicator

7th October 2011, 08:30

Wallmart is part of the US macroeconomy and other companies like them are the rest.

Some of the savings it passes to consumers, most it passes to profits, but overall wages will be flatlined, infact they are, and its impact on the labor market is HUGE, not only internally but overseas as well.

Walmart is a very small part of the US economy, and the wages it pays are a very small part of the labor market, so it's going to have a small impact on labor markets.

Walmart's profit margins came in at a whopping 3.5%.

Came across this website today: www.SaveAmericasPostalService.org (http://www.SaveAmericasPostalService.org)

A law passed in 2006 requires the USPS to pay off a 75-year liability in only 10 years to "pre-fund" healthcare benefits for future retirees, costing the USPS $5 billion a year and forcing it into bankruptcy.

Planned privatization includes eliminating Saturday service and laying-off 120,000 employees. That says it all right there.

Well they lost $9 billion last year, so getting rid of this would put their losses down to $4bil, a great success by any government standard!

Plus, if they provide such wonderful service why do they need a legal monopoly?

RGacky3

7th October 2011, 08:37

Walmart is a very small part of the US economy, and the wages it pays are a very small part of the labor market, so it's going to have a small impact on labor markets.

Walmart's profit margins came in at a whopping 3.5%.

Yeah but the Walmart model is one that is systemic, tons of companies are doing the same thing.

Well they lost $9 billion last year, so getting rid of this would put their losses down to $4bil, a great success by any government standard!

Plus, if they provide such wonderful service why do they need a legal monopoly?

Before the law was passed they were in the green the WHOLE TIME.

I don't care abou the legal monopoly but no one is talking about that.

Judicator

7th October 2011, 08:46

Yeah but the Walmart model is one that is systemic, tons of companies are doing the same thing.

Okay, so this would happen whether or not Walmart existed. More evidence for my point that Walmart has minimal impact.

Before the law was passed they were in the green the WHOLE TIME.

I don't care abou the legal monopoly but no one is talking about that.

Yes, -$4bil is in the green.

The legal monopoly is the only thing keeping the post office alive.

RGacky3

7th October 2011, 08:51

Okay, so this would happen whether or not Walmart existed. More evidence for my point that Walmart has minimal impact.

Its the Walmart model I'm talking about .... Btw, Walmart is in the top 5 if not the top largest company in the world, so its by no means small potatoes, so fo coarse other companie scopy their model.

Yes, -$4bil is in the green.

The legal monopoly is the only thing keeping the post office alive.

Historically they've always been in the green, show me when BEFORE THE LAW WAS PASSED they were in the red.

The legal monopoly? Bullshit, are UPS and FedEX dying to mail paper letters for a couple cents to farmers? Common now. They obviously only care about whats profitable, and paper letters arn't really that profitable.

Judicator

7th October 2011, 08:56

Its the Walmart model I'm talking about .... Btw, Walmart is in the top 5 if not the top largest company in the world, so its by no means small potatoes, so fo coarse other companie scopy their model.

Cutting labor costs isn't a revolutionary idea invented by Walmart...

Historically they've always been in the green, show me when BEFORE THE LAW WAS PASSED they were in the red.

The legal monopoly? Bullshit, are UPS and FedEX dying to mail paper letters for a couple cents? Common now.

Last year, ignoring the impact of the law ($5bil) they still lost money.

I'm sure UPS and FedEX would be happy to eat a chunk of USPS $70bil in revenue.

RGacky3

7th October 2011, 09:11

Cutting labor costs isn't a revolutionary idea invented by Walmart...

Yeah, but they way they did it was pretty revolutionary.

Last year, ignoring the impact of the law ($5bil) they still lost money.

I'm sure UPS and FedEX would be happy to eat a chunk of USPS $70bil in revenue.

So basically no answer, before the law, they were always in the green, and even if you ignore the direct results of the bill your ignoring all the inderect results.

As for UPS and Fedex, if they wanted to deliver paper mail to farmers in Nabraska, I'm pretty sure they would have asked, you really think that paper mail (the only monopolized part) is profitable ... Actually the only monopoly is the use of mailboxes ... Do you really think that is the soarce of ALL their revenue?

Your out of touch.

Judicator

7th October 2011, 09:26

Yeah, but they way they did it was pretty revolutionary.

Pay employees minimum wage? What a concept!

So basically no answer, before the law, they were always in the green, and even if you ignore the direct results of the bill your ignoring all the inderect results.

As for UPS and Fedex, if they wanted to deliver paper mail to farmers in Nabraska, I'm pretty sure they would have asked, you really think that paper mail (the only monopolized part) is profitable ... Actually the only monopoly is the use of mailboxes ... Do you really think that is the soarce of ALL their revenue?

Indirect results? Like what?

They have asked...why wouldn't corporations want more money?

RGacky3

7th October 2011, 09:29

Pay employees minimum wage? What a concept!

outsourcing, bulk, running at a loss to run out compeditors, making monopolies in small towns, busting unions abroad and here, economies of scale to coopt producers into cutting cost.

Indirect results? Like what?

Like having less money for investments for example.

For a capitalist you have very little buisiness insight.

They have asked...why wouldn't corporations want more money?

Because dirt cheap paper mail to everyone is'nt profitable ...

Judicator

7th October 2011, 09:35

outsourcing, bulk, running at a loss to run out compeditors, making monopolies in small towns, busting unions abroad and here, economies of scale to coopt producers into cutting cost.

These are not new concepts, nor were they invented by Walmart.

Like having less money for investments for example.

For a capitalist you have very little buisiness insight.

Yes, the law which was passed a year or two ago caused their $5bil payment caused an additional $4bil in losses. So you're saying their ROI is 80%? This is absurd. You're the one lacking business insight.

Because dirt cheap paper mail to everyone is'nt profitable ...

No, some customers are much more profitable, like people in NY state sending letters to NY state, to subsidize those sending mail to Alaska. Why should I pay so someone else can send a letter for $0.50 to Alaska?

RGacky3

7th October 2011, 09:44

Yes, the law which was passed a year or two ago caused their $5bil payment caused an additional $4bil in losses. So you're saying their ROI is 80%? This is absurd. You're the one lacking business insight.

So they were in the Green the WHOLE TIME, and they have a couple years of losses after a law, and now you want to privatize it, why not take the law out first then see waht happens, what your doing is ytour shackeling thte USPS with things NO OTHER BUISINESS has to come close to dealing with an your supprised it goes into the red ... for the first time.

No, some customers are much more profitable, like people in NY state sending letters to NY state, to subsidize those sending mail to Alaska. Why should I pay so someone else can send a letter for $0.50 to Alaska?

.... Your not, subsidizing anything.

Judicator

8th October 2011, 00:54

So they were in the Green the WHOLE TIME, and they have a couple years of losses after a law, and now you want to privatize it, why not take the law out first then see waht happens, what your doing is ytour shackeling thte USPS with things NO OTHER BUISINESS has to come close to dealing with an your supprised it goes into the red ... for the first time./QUOTE]

Mail volumes are shrinking and the post office is having problems keeping up profitability.

Why not take all laws impacting the post office, including their protected monopoly status away and see what happens?

[QUOTE=RGacky3;2254648].... Your not, subsidizing anything.

Private firms don't routinely charge the same price to everyone for products with vastly different costs.

Revolution starts with U

8th October 2011, 07:29

No, some customers are much more profitable, like people in NY state sending letters to NY state, to subsidize those sending mail to Alaska. Why should I pay so someone else can send a letter for $0.50 to Alaska?

Dude...

http://nationallampoon.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/postman.jpg

RGacky3

8th October 2011, 09:21

Mail volumes are shrinking and the post office is having problems keeping up profitability.

Why not take all laws impacting the post office, including their protected monopoly status away and see what happens?

Actually since internet buying took off, the post office has had more profitability.

I have no problem with your second proposal, because we have examples all over the world that socialized buisiness works better.

Private firms don't routinely charge the same price to everyone for products with vastly different costs.

... your still not subsidising anything.

Judicator

11th October 2011, 06:00

... your still not subsidising anything.

The government is offering services to certain users at a price below cost. That's a subsidy.

RGacky3

11th October 2011, 08:09

The government is offering services to certain users at a price below cost. That's a subsidy.

So is MecDonalds giving free Katchup a subsidy?

Judicator

11th October 2011, 08:34

So is MecDonalds giving free Katchup a subsidy?

The term is most often used in the context of government spending, but yes McDonald's is using it's restaurant operations to subsidize the free ketchup.

It's even in the dictionary! Who would've known?

sub·si·dize
verb /ˈsəbsəˌdīz/
subsidised, past participle; subsidised, past tense; subsidises, 3rd person singular present; subsidising, present participle; subsidized, past participle; subsidized, past tense; subsidizes, 3rd person singular present; subsidizing, present participle

Support (an organization or activity) financially
- it was beyond the power of a state to subsidize a business

Pay part of the cost of producing (something) to reduce prices for the buyer
- the government subsidizes basic goods including sugar, petroleum, and wheat

RGacky3

11th October 2011, 08:43

The term is most often used in the context of government spending, but yes McDonald's is using it's restaurant operations to subsidize the free ketchup.

Except if they pay for themselves its not government spending.

But if your complaining that your subsidizing letters to Alaska by paying 20 cents as opposed to 19 cents, then you might as well ***** to Mcdonalds that you have to pay for other peoples free katchup, your grasping at air here.

Judicator

12th October 2011, 07:44

Except if they pay for themselves its not government spending.

But if your complaining that your subsidizing letters to Alaska by paying 20 cents as opposed to 19 cents, then you might as well ***** to Mcdonalds that you have to pay for other peoples free katchup, your grasping at air here.

You just pulled the 20c/19c out of your ass, didn't you?

The difference of course being that McDonald's does this for the convenience of the customer (me), while USPS does it on the whim of bureaucrats who decided postage should cost the same anywhere. There is no desire for commercial reasonableness when it comes to the USPS pricing across regions, since it's run by the government.

RGacky3

12th October 2011, 09:04

You just pulled the 20c/19c out of your ass, didn't you?

Yes, are you arguing over the price of stamps? Is it gonna help your argument?

The difference of course being that McDonald's does this for the convenience of the customer (me), while USPS does it on the whim of bureaucrats who decided postage should cost the same anywhere. There is no desire for commercial reasonableness when it comes to the USPS pricing across regions, since it's run by the government.

... People living in Alaska ARE consumers as well.

Judicator

13th October 2011, 00:56

Yes, are you arguing over the price of stamps? Is it gonna help your argument?

Sure, the difference is going to be large, meaning the amount of reallocation is large.

... People living in Alaska ARE consumers as well.

They are given services without regard to commercial reasonableness.

RGacky3

13th October 2011, 18:01

Sure, the difference is going to be large, meaning the amount of reallocation is large.

So your saying that your paying TOO much for stamps because they also mail stuff to alaska.

They are given services without regard to commercial reasonableness.

Yeah, the USPS is a non profit institution, and thats one of the benefits of non-profits, they put people before profits.

Judicator

14th October 2011, 01:26

So your saying that your paying TOO much for stamps because they also mail stuff to alaska.

I'm saying the price to send a first class piece of mail from one Manhattan address to another is artificially high because of how the government does its pricing.

Yeah, the USPS is a non profit institution, and thats one of the benefits of non-profits, they put people before profits.

No business can continue without customers. Customers are people too.

Klaatu

14th October 2011, 01:57

Yup, when a government program works, and works well, the right wing has to try and ruin it and privatize it.

When a publicly-owned company is privatised, costs go way way up.

That's because the public company is (A) non-profit (B) does not pay taxes (C) does NOT have to pay a $50 million CEO (and his $10 million underlings) (D) no need to pay stockholders either... Costs are much lower than a private company.

For example, Enron took over the Texas public electric plants, and proceeded to raise rates by 150% or more... The rolling blackouts in California in 2001 were entirely due to Enron's crafty manipulations of the power grid (some folks paid as much as $600/ kWH during the criminal regime of capitalist Enron) in order to suck millions out of the customers (and don't get me started on private health care in the U.S.)

The reason these capitalists are trying to get their greasy hands on the USPS is not that they are "Patroits" (actually, they are criminals, as most capitalists are) The reason is that they see millions of $$$$ to be made.

I say dump these capitalists off the cliff.

Dean

14th October 2011, 04:23

But the postal service is a SERVICE. It isn' the business of the government to do things that that private sector does (and does better.) Get politicians out of things like this.

Leave delivery services to UPS and FedEx and DSL.

Signed: Bud Struggle--a UPS customer for all his business needs.

UPS is a shitty, fraudulent, overcharged service.

FedEx is slightly better with independent carriers that bid on routes and manage themselves.

USPS is far more efficient, fast and cost-effective than the other 2. Too bad that congress requires that they pay for Pensions 75 years in advance, which is bankrupting the service (though they have been surprisingly resilient so far). The fact that the media doesn't mention this and other absurd policies bankrupting USPS when they talk about cuts to the USPS facilities is another aspect of the push for privatization mentioned above.

The only problem with government ownership of USPS is that they can dictate what policies USPS has. The USPS has outshined all of the other major carriers in consumer value, profitability, efficiency and consistency for decades. It shouldn't be government owned - it should be worker owned.

RGacky3

14th October 2011, 07:56

I'm saying the price to send a first class piece of mail from one Manhattan address to another is artificially high because of how the government does its pricing.

Yeah, but if you privatize the USPS it would be even higher because they need to pay profit and more overhead.

No business can continue without customers. Customers are people too.

Yeah ... No shit, did you get the whole reason I said people before profits?

Judicator

14th October 2011, 08:09

Yeah, but if you privatize the USPS it would be even higher because they need to pay profit and more overhead.

They need to cover their cost of capital, that's all. The post office does too. If any organization is breaking even or making a small profit on an accounting basis, they are probably losing money on an economic basis because they are failing to cover their cost of equity.

Yeah, but if you privatize the USPS it would be even higher because they need to pay profit and more overhead.

See above.

RGacky3

14th October 2011, 08:12

Why did you quote the same thing twice???

They need to cover their cost of capital, that's all. The post office does too. If any organization is breaking even or making a small profit on an accounting basis, they are probably losing money on an economic basis because they are failing to cover their cost of equity.

Well empirical evidence just points out the opposite, privatization alwasy raises costs.

Judicator

14th October 2011, 08:31

Why did you quote the same thing twice???

:blushing:

Yeah ... No shit, did you get the whole reason I said people before profits?

Right, first they meet the needs of the customer, and in doing so they generate profits.

Well empirical evidence just points out the opposite, privatization alwasy raises costs.

Except here, (http://articles.philly.com/1994-10-06/news/25871569_1_privatization-city-services-unionized-city-workers) here, (http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/privatization-english.html) and here, (http://www.iadb.org/res/publications/pubfiles/pubr-486.pdf) to name a few.

RGacky3

14th October 2011, 08:46

Right, first they meet the needs of the customer, and in doing so they generate profits.

Meeting the needs of the consumer in your world would mean chargin Alaskan people a bunch more for mail, and raising your prices as much as possible.

Except here, (http://www.anonym.to/?http://articles.philly.com/1994-10-06/news/25871569_1_privatization-city-services-unionized-city-workers) here, (http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/privatization-english.html) and here, (http://www.iadb.org/res/publications/pubfiles/pubr-486.pdf) to name a few.

First arcticle, only lowerd cost by busting up the union, not by being more efficient, and also lowering service standards

From the article

"In its most notable privatization failure, the administration contracted out food service in the city's prison system last year to Service America Corp. Lousy food got even worse as the entire kitchen structure fell apart."

Second article did'nt give any numbers, and when it comes to Thatchers economy, I pretty sure I can show you the effects of that.

Third article, well, we can just compare the poverty rates before and after the socialization of parts of the economy in Venezuela, Argentina, Bolivia Ecuador, and so on.

Also for every 1 success story of privatization I'll give you 20 failures.

Judicator

14th October 2011, 09:09

Meeting the needs of the consumer in your world would mean chargin Alaskan people a bunch more for mail, and raising your prices as much as possible.

It means providing services to consumers where the costs justify the benefits and not providing it elsewhere.

First arcticle, only lowerd cost by busting up the union, not by being more efficient, and also lowering service standards

Labor is a cost just like anything else. Having union employees get paid to sit around and do nothing is not an efficient use of resources.

"In its most notable privatization failure, the administration contracted out food service in the city's prison system last year to Service America Corp. Lousy food got even worse as the entire kitchen structure fell apart."

Presumably they wouldn't get their contract back. Inefficient poorly run businesses failing is a benefit of privatization. Government institutions can remain inefficient forever at taxpayer expense.

Second article did'nt give any numbers, and when it comes to Thatchers economy, I pretty sure I can show you the effects of that.

Every controlled study comparing public versus private service delivery shows lower costs (for a given level of performance) for private enterprise. This includes nationwide studies of garbage collection in the United States (1976) and Canada (1985); of fire protection (1976, Arizona); public-works services such as street sweeping, pavement patching, and traffic signal repair (1984, Southern California); transit services (1986, US); school bus transportation (1984, Indiana); airlines (1977, Australia); naval ship repair (1978, US), and many others.

Third article, well, we can just compare the poverty rates before and after the socialization of parts of the economy in Venezuela, Argentina, Bolivia Ecuador, and so on.

Or, we can talk about the original claim, that public firms are more efficient. In the case of the third article, that obviously wasn't the case. The paper is full of examples. Why are you trying to make sweeping generalizations about the causes of changes in the macroeconomy when you can just look at specific cases?

A new generation of studies has emerged with more detailed data and new econometric approaches that seem to corroborate the early results in terms of access and quality. For instance, Torero and Pasco-Font (2001) show that the number of telephone lines in Peru increased from 2.9 to 7.8 per 100 inhabitants and the electrification coefficient jumped from 48 to 70 percent between 1993 and 1998. Another study by Torero et al. (2003) tests the impact of the privatization of telecommunications on the welfare of urban consumers in Peru, showing significant welfare gains and dramatic improvements in terms of efficiency, access and quality of service. Similarly, Fischer et al. (2003) find improvements in access and service quality in the telecommunications sector in Chile, where the number of phone lines in operation increased six fold, bringing teledensity levels from 4.7 to 23.1 lines per 100 inhabitants between 1987 and 2001. The average length of the
waiting period for a new phone line dropped from 416 days in 1993 to only 6 days in 2001, while the waiting list for a phone had dropped from a peak of 314,000 households in 1992 to only 32,000 by 2001.

RGacky3

14th October 2011, 11:27

It means providing services to consumers where the costs justify the benefits and not providing it elsewhere.

Who the hell "justifies" prices, you charge what you can get away with.

Labor is a cost just like anything else. Having union employees get paid to sit around and do nothing is not an efficient use of resources.

Just paying your workers less is'nt evidence that somehow private firms are a ton better, also many private firms use a ton from the government. I'll give you an example.

When the road company hires a private firm they do half the work for them, let them take the profitable part, and then double chek their work and so on, if the state is taking part of the costs of the private firm of coarse its gonna cost more.

Presumably they wouldn't get their contract back. Inefficient poorly run businesses failing is a benefit of privatization. Government institutions can remain inefficient forever at taxpayer expense.

You mean like Enron?

If they are taking government contracts then the tax payer is basically subsidizing them.

Every controlled study comparing public versus private service delivery shows lower costs (for a given level of performance) for private enterprise. This includes nationwide studies of garbage collection in the United States (1976) and Canada (1985); of fire protection (1976, Arizona); public-works services such as street sweeping, pavement patching, and traffic signal repair (1984, Southern California); transit services (1986, US); school bus transportation (1984, Indiana); airlines (1977, Australia); naval ship repair (1978, US), and many others.

That does'nt mean savings for hte consumer, thats also what studies show.

Or, we can talk about the original claim, that public firms are more efficient. In the case of the third article, that obviously wasn't the case. The paper is full of examples. Why are you trying to make sweeping generalizations about the causes of changes in the macroeconomy when you can just look at specific cases?

A new generation of studies has emerged with more detailed data and new econometric approaches that seem to corroborate the early results in terms of access and quality. For instance, Torero and Pasco-Font (2001) show that the number of telephone lines in Peru increased from 2.9 to 7.8 per 100 inhabitants and the electrification coefficient jumped from 48 to 70 percent between 1993 and 1998. Another study by Torero et al. (2003) tests the impact of the privatization of telecommunications on the welfare of urban consumers in Peru, showing significant welfare gains and dramatic improvements in terms of efficiency, access and quality of service. Similarly, Fischer et al. (2003) find improvements in access and service quality in the telecommunications sector in Chile, where the number of phone lines in operation increased six fold, bringing teledensity levels from 4.7 to 23.1 lines per 100 inhabitants between 1987 and 2001. The average length of the
waiting period for a new phone line dropped from 416 days in 1993 to only 6 days in 2001, while the waiting list for a phone had dropped from a peak of 314,000 households in 1992 to only 32,000 by 2001.

I can't show oyu a bunch of examples where privatization ruined economies and made the services worse, and had higher cost.

ComradeMan

14th October 2011, 11:41

Who the hell "justifies" prices, you charge what you can get away with.

Fair exchange.

Just paying your workers less is'nt evidence that somehow private firms are a ton better, also many private firms use a ton from the government. I'll give you an example.

No it isn't, but paying state workers who sit around on their asses and do fuck all a lot of money isn't justified either. I'm not saying that all state employees do this but.....

RGacky3

14th October 2011, 11:56

Fair exchange.

Are you really buying into this "fair exchange" capitalist propeganda???

No it isn't, but paying state workers who sit around on their asses and do fuck all a lot of money isn't justified either. I'm not saying that all state employees do this but.....

Really? Try be a school teacher. Either way, personally I think an institution that pays its employees well, does'nt slave drive them and still gives good service at a low cost is much better than the capitalist alternative.

If you want to fix the economy in the US one thing you would do is have everyone work a couple hours less a week for the same pay.

Either way the important thing is the consumer and the overall economic effect.

Klaatu

15th October 2011, 00:36

No it isn't, but paying state workers who sit around on their asses and do fuck all a lot of money isn't justified either. I'm not saying that all state employees do this but.....

I am a state worker and I work my fucking ass off.

So FUCK YOU!

Judicator

17th October 2011, 03:55

Who the hell "justifies" prices, you charge what you can get away with.

Except when you're the government, building $50 million bridges to nowhere, and charging less to send mail to certain parts of the country than it actually costs.

Just paying your workers less is'nt evidence that somehow private firms are a ton better, also many private firms use a ton from the government. I'll give you an example.

When the road company hires a private firm they do half the work for them, let them take the profitable part, and then double chek their work and so on, if the state is taking part of the costs of the private firm of coarse its gonna cost more.

So now doing the same work for less cost isn't evidence of economic efficiency? I don't know what planet you're from...

You just made that example up, and you're criticizing ME for not having empirical evidence?

You mean like Enron?

If they are taking government contracts then the tax payer is basically subsidizing them.

Enron is bankrupt. The government, unlike Enron, can continue engaging in economically inefficient activities forever.

It depends how the contracts are handed out. If they are all given out to the firms of Obama's college buddy, then yes that's anti-competitive.

That does'nt mean savings for hte consumer, thats also what studies show.

We are talking about public services provided privately (like garbage collection). Lower costs mean savings to the taxpayer. The consumer gets it free.

I can't show oyu a bunch of examples where privatization ruined economies and made the services worse, and had higher cost.

I guess not.

Klaatu

17th October 2011, 04:15

"I can't show oyu a bunch of examples where privatization ruined economies and made the services worse, and had higher cost"

I can!

ENRON. The U.S. banking industry. The U.S. healthcare industry. (for starters)

Pritivatise = HIGH cost
Nationalise = low cost

For example private schools are more expensive than public schools (supported by property tax, which is much lower, per capita, than sending Johnny off to a tie-and-jacket capitalist elitist school)

Judicator

17th October 2011, 07:01

ENRON. The U.S. banking industry. The U.S. healthcare industry. (for starters)

How are the US banking and healthcare industries examples of privatization? I don't think they were public beforehand....

Enron is a great example of how you can botch "deregulation." They let the power plant operators charge whatever they wanted but the utility companies remained regulated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis#Government_price_cap s

For example private schools are more expensive than public schools (supported by property tax, which is much lower, per capita, than sending Johnny off to a tie-and-jacket capitalist elitist school)

And look at how shitty public schools are vs. private schools. Not to mention that's actually false in several cases: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-real-cost-of-public-schools/

RGacky3

17th October 2011, 09:16

Except when you're the government, building $50 million bridges to nowhere, and charging less to send mail to certain parts of the country than it actually costs.

... Except it costs LESS to send a package by the USPS no matter where you are (notice I said package, which is more profitable that letter mail, and which private firms have no restrictions on).

So now doing the same work for less cost isn't evidence of economic efficiency? I don't know what planet you're from...

You just made that example up, and you're criticizing ME for not having empirical evidence?

I'm actually not making that example up because I work in that industry.

Its not the same work for less, If I (the government) do all the planning, preperation and infastructure, then hand off the profitable part for you, it does'nt mean your more efficient, it just means your taking the profitable part and giving me the costs.

Also remember, the government can't juts pass out externalities, its responsible for them, private firms are not.

Enron is bankrupt. The government, unlike Enron, can continue engaging in economically inefficient activities forever.

It depends how the contracts are handed out. If they are all given out to the firms of Obama's college buddy, then yes that's anti-competitive.

Actually no the government can't, IF the government is democratically aco****able to its people. In countries with more democratic systems than the US, you have more more public sector efficiency and accountability.

We are talking about public services provided privately (like garbage collection). Lower costs mean savings to the taxpayer. The consumer gets it free.

Ok, but do you believe that different firms have different levels of efficiency? Why would'nt the same be the case for government, more corrupt and unnaccountable governments (like in the US), would obviously work less well than very democratic and accountable governments.

But the difference is, governments can run not for profit and private firms do not.

I guess not.

I mean I can, I can show you a bunch of examples where privatization made things worse.

Klaatu

18th October 2011, 02:24

How are the US banking and healthcare industries examples of privatization? I don't think they were public beforehand....

They are private, aren't they? What's the difference?

Enron is a great example of how you can botch "deregulation." They let the power plant operators charge whatever they wanted but the utility companies remained regulated.

I'm glad you favor regulation.

And look at how shitty public schools are vs. private schools.
That's not true at all. The school is not the problem; it's the bad parenting. Parents that pay for a private school expect their kid to do better (because it's very expensive) so they take part in his education.

A lot of public school parents do not participate in their child's education at all (hence the child cuts class, doesn't study, etc) and the school gets blamed. When I was growing up (the 60s and 70s, teachers still had good control of their classroom - we used to get paddled)

I have tutored several responsible public school high school students, who (A) know their education is important and (B) do not need parental discipline to do their homework. So blame the bad student too for goofing off, don't blame the teacher.

For you to state that "public schools are shitty" shows how little-informed you are. I work in this field. I ought to know what-goes-on.

Judicator

18th October 2011, 02:41

... Except it costs LESS to send a package by the USPS no matter where you are (notice I said package, which is more profitable that letter mail, and which private firms have no restrictions on).

Did you just make this up, or take a single example you found where under certain circumstances USPS is cheaper, and then generalize wildly?

http://mywifequitherjob.com/what-is-the-cheapest-shipping-option-usps-fedex-or-ups/

Its not the same work for less, If I (the government) do all the planning, preperation and infastructure, then hand off the profitable part for you, it does'nt mean your more efficient, it just means your taking the profitable part and giving me the costs.

Also remember, the government can't juts pass out externalities, its responsible for them, private firms are not.

What isn't the same work for less? Are you referring to a specific example? Let's talk about real examples.

The presence of externalities only means you have to regulate it.

Actually no the government can't, IF the government is democratically aco****able to its people. In countries with more democratic systems than the US, you have more more public sector efficiency and accountability.

Do you? Evidence? Again, are you just making this up? Please show me some studies indicate this is the case?

Ok, but do you believe that different firms have different levels of efficiency? Why would'nt the same be the case for government, more corrupt and unnaccountable governments (like in the US), would obviously work less well than very democratic and accountable governments.

But the difference is, governments can run not for profit and private firms do not.

Shit government < Functional government < Functional private sector

Governments can run at an accounting profit of 0, but this is really at an economic loss. I'm sure you're familiar with opportunity costs.

I mean I can, I can show you a bunch of examples where privatization made things worse.

It is possible to screw up privatization, but please do!

Judicator

18th October 2011, 02:55

They are private, aren't they? What's the difference?

Privatization is when you take something that was previously public and make it private. This wasn't the case for banks or healthcare.

I'm glad you favor regulation.

In this case, the problem was they left the industry half-regulated half-deregulated, but yes in some cases regulation is fine. In fact, in most of these cases I'd argue regulation + privatization is far more efficient than government operation.

That's not true at all. The school is not the problem; it's the bad parenting. Parents that pay for a private school expect their kid to do better (because it's very expensive) so they take part in his education.

Which is all the more reason to believe giving more money to schools isn't going to help anyone. The students are unwilling/unable to learn for whatever reason, perhaps a crappy home environment, so throwing more money at the schools will be extremely low ROI.

A lot of public school parents do not participate in their child's education at all (hence the child cuts class, doesn't study, etc) and the school gets blamed. When I was growing up (the 60s and 70s, teachers still had good control of their classroom - we used to get paddled)

I'm sure beating the kid some more would help him get over the emotional damage caused by his father beating him at home.

I have tutored several responsible public school high school students, who (A) know their education is important and (B) do not need parental discipline to do their homework. So blame the bad student too for goofing off, don't blame the teacher.

For you to state that "public schools are shitty" shows how little-informed you are. I work in this field. I ought to know what-goes-on.

"Shitty" means something beyond just "has bad teachers" - it's everything about the school, which includes, like you said, the student body. The real tragedy is when there are very bright students in bad schools - with public education their parents have very little choice. Magnet/charter schools provide some escape, but why not offer them a fuller range of choices?

Klaatu

18th October 2011, 04:54

"Privatization is when you take something that was previously public and make it private. This wasn't the case for banks or healthcare."

Wrong Again. The First and Second National Banks were publicly-owned banks in the early 19th century.
This was before the privateers took over and have been sucking out the national wealth ever since.

Public health care (of which the USA is the ONLY country in the world which lacks this wonderful system) has not been
allowed to germinate and grow due to extremely heavy false negative propaganda coming out of the criminal conservative
lobbyists who are hell-bent on keeping their greasy hands on this enormously-profitable golden goose
________________________________________________

"In this case, the problem was they left the industry half-regulated half-deregulated, but yes in some cases
regulation is fine. In fact, in most of these cases I'd argue regulation + privatization is far more efficient than
government operation."

So then give us a few examples. At least you can see the folly of de-regulation. (congratulations!)
But I am not convinced that "government operation" is a bad thing. This just sounds like some libertarian talking points.
They always say "government cannot do it," yet never give any evidence to support their dubious claims.
________________________________________________

"Which is all the more reason to believe giving more money to schools isn't going to help anyone. The students are unwilling/unable to learn for whatever reason, perhaps a crappy home environment, so throwing more money at the schools will be extremely low ROI."

And cutting school funding is not helping either. Please explain to us how cutting education funding (cutting teachers' pay,
busting our union, and stealing the childrens' lunch money are going to boost their learning ability?
_________________________________________________

"I'm sure beating the kid some more would help him get over the emotional damage caused by his father beating him at home."

Jeezes Krist, man. No one is talking about "beating kids!" Where did I say we were "beaten" in school back in the 60s?
Stop making disingenuous remarks like that.
__________________________________________________
"Shitty" means something beyond just "has bad teachers" - it's everything about the school, which includes, like you said, the student body. The real tragedy is when there are very bright students in bad schools - with public education their parents have very little choice. Magnet/charter schools provide some escape, but why not offer them a fuller range of choices?"

I don't want to see poor children left behind. If we continue to allow this exodus of public to private schools,
we can expect similar results as the 1960s and 1970s as was the infamous "white flight" out of major cities,
which left the poor classes with lesser schools and lesser incomes (hence the "shitty schools" of which you speak of)

Poor folks simply cannot afford to personally pay for an education for their kids. That is up to SOCIETY.
And Charter schools are privately-run. Those parents that can afford them will use them. But I am
firmly against any type of for-profit school, because education is a fundamental right. That right is
in grave danger in America, as are other rights, thanks to the conservative party, which is hell-bent
on destroying the American Dream For The Worker

Who are the "radical revolutionaries" here? The American Political Right Wing, that's who.

Judicator

18th October 2011, 07:46

Wrong Again. The First and Second National Banks were publicly-owned banks in the early 19th century.
This was before the privateers took over and have been sucking out the national wealth ever since.

Public health care (of which the USA is the ONLY country in the world which lacks this wonderful system) has not been
allowed to germinate and grow due to extremely heavy false negative propaganda coming out of the criminal conservative
lobbyists who are hell-bent on keeping their greasy hands on this enormously-profitable golden goose

So you agree then I'm right about healthcare, it is not an example of privatization?

On banking....[citation needed]
Are you claiming because a national bank was created at one point, the entire banking system was public? Are you claiming that private banks in the US, and banking services, were completely unavailable prior to 1791?

I think what really happened is you brought up banking as an example of "privatization," thinking it was an obvious example given the recent financial crisis, but then realized you were wrong and are desperately trying to generate as much ad hoc evidence as possible.

But I am not convinced that "government operation" is a bad thing. This just sounds like some libertarian talking points.
They always say "government cannot do it," yet never give any evidence to support their dubious claims.

Read the paper I linked earlier on Argentina, Chile, etc.

And cutting school funding is not helping either. Please explain to us how cutting education funding (cutting teachers' pay,
busting our union, and stealing the childrens' lunch money are going to boost their learning ability?

It's not going to hurt it, since the students are evidently crap to begin with. We have doubled (or increased by a large factor) primary education funding since 1970 and have nothing to show for it:

http://www.heritage.org/static/reportimages/796DF8C7C231CFFE366308277E88CF57.gif

Jeezes Krist, man. No one is talking about "beating kids!" Where did I say we were "beaten" in school back in the 60s?
Stop making disingenuous remarks like that.

Hitting them with a paddle, corporal punishment, etc.

I don't want to see poor children left behind. If we continue to allow this exodus of public to private schools,
we can expect similar results as the 1960s and 1970s as was the infamous "white flight" out of major cities,
which left the poor classes with lesser schools and lesser incomes (hence the "shitty schools" of which you speak of)

Vouchers/privatized schools would allow the most highly qualified of the poor, who would otherwise be condemned to a low quality school, to enjoy high quality education.

Poor folks simply cannot afford to personally pay for an education for their kids. That is up to SOCIETY.
And Charter schools are privately-run. Those parents that can afford them will use them. But I am firmly against any type of for-profit school, because education is a fundamental right. That right is in grave danger in America, as are other rights, thanks to the conservative party, which is hell-bent
on destroying the American Dream For The Worker

Is money the problem or isn't it? Look at the link on the DC schools...they spend an insane amount of money.

What level of education is a right? Is everyone entitled to know calculus? Why? What's wrong with being uneducated? Why does it make any sense as a society to spend money educating those who will get the lowest benefit from education (for example, kids with downs). Why should we spend so much money on the worst students?

RGacky3

18th October 2011, 08:47

Did you just make this up, or take a single example you found where under certain circumstances USPS is cheaper, and then generalize wildly?

http://mywifequitherjob.com/what-is-...-fedex-or-ups/ (http://mywifequitherjob.com/what-is-the-cheapest-shipping-option-usps-fedex-or-ups/)

... Yeah, USPS is cheapre most of the time with packages, and thats EVEN with USPS paying for very unprofitable services like sending mail to alaska, and unprofitable paper mail.

What isn't the same work for less? Are you referring to a specific example? Let's talk about real examples.

The presence of externalities only means you have to regulate it.

Take road contractors, the government does the planning, the government controls the area, the government takes the risk.

The prisence of externalities is a giant inefficiency of private buisiness, sure you have to regulate it, but corporations can find their way around those all the times, its better to nationalize it when its a public good.

Do you? Evidence? Again, are you just making this up? Please show me some studies indicate this is the case?

Compare Norway's Statoil with Mexican's Pemex.

Shit government < Functional government < Functional private sector

It depends on the sector, obviously healthcare works much better under public control.

Governments can run at an accounting profit of 0, but this is really at an economic loss. I'm sure you're familiar with opportunity costs.

Sure, but its not actually at an opportunity loss, if you don't drill for oil somewhere becaues its enviromentally dangerous, you would consider that an opportunity loss, but thats because enviromental danger is an externality.

Or lets say you pay your workers more, that helps the economy as a whole, thats not counted as a benefit, only a cost, because that boost to the economy is an externality.

It is possible to screw up privatization, but please do!

Argentina privatized most everything, so did Iceland, and look what happened.

Or take Bolivia, the short lived water privatization was a disaster, destroyed local agriculture and led to a revolution.

Or in the US, the private prisons (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/19/us/19prisons.html?_r=1), pushing for tougher and tougher laws and higher and higher prison populations, you have worse conditions and higher costs.

Then you have parking meters (http://la.streetsblog.org/2010/02/04/citys-plan-to-privatize-publicly-owned-parking-garages-leaves-some-experts-scratching-their-heads/) and garages, where prices have gone way up without any change in service.

Or take in the UK, Thatcher privatized almost everything, and collapsed the country, it lead to some growth, but re-created the class inequalities, unemployment is huge, and led to tons of outsourcing.

There are plenty more if you'd like.

Judicator

18th October 2011, 09:04

... Yeah, USPS is cheapre most of the time with packages, and thats EVEN with USPS paying for very unprofitable services like sending mail to alaska, and unprofitable paper mail.

Oh, wait, but the USPS quality is substandard:
"While we don’t check on the status of all of our orders, I can tell you from experience that the quoted delivery times from USPS for both First Class and Priority Mail are completely hit or miss."

Take road contractors, the government does the planning, the government controls the area, the government takes the risk.

The prisence of externalities is a giant inefficiency of private buisiness, sure you have to regulate it, but corporations can find their way around those all the times, its better to nationalize it when its a public good.

They should certainly stay out of things that aren't. Transport to the city, for example, is NOT a public good. It's rival and excludable. Look it up.

For things that are public goods, subsidy + private provision works just fine.

Externalites will exist in ANY business. Do you think if the government operated coal plants they would cease to produce C02?

Compare Norway's Statoil with Mexican's Pemex.

What? They're both state owned

It depends on the sector, obviously healthcare works much better under public control.

Do you have some examples of pure private health systems vs. pure public ones (i.e. a public system where government operates the hospitals, invents the drugs, etc., vs. one where govt does none of that).

Or lets say you pay your workers more, that helps the economy as a whole, thats not counted as a benefit, only a cost, because that boost to the economy is an externality.

If you have $10 billion in capital tied up and you're making $1 million a year on it, this is an economic loss.

Overpaying workers is, I think, an example of the broken window fallacy. It would be no different from the government deciding it should pay 2x the market price for steel, under the theory that this would also stimulate the economy.

Argentina privatized most everything, so did Iceland, and look what happened.

Or take Bolivia, the short lived water privatization was a disaster, destroyed local agriculture and led to a revolution.

Or in the US, the private prisons, pushing for tougher and tougher laws and higher and higher prison populations, you have worse conditions and higher costs.

Then you have parking meters and garages, where prices have gone way up without any change in service.

Or take in the UK, Thatcher privatized almost everything, and collapsed the country, it lead to some growth, but re-created the class inequalities, unemployment is huge, and led to tons of outsourcing.

There are plenty more if you'd like.

[citation needed]

RGacky3

18th October 2011, 09:20

Oh, wait, but the USPS quality is substandard:
"While we don’t check on the status of all of our orders, I can tell you from experience that the quoted delivery times from USPS for both First Class and Priority Mail are completely hit or miss."

That was just one persons opinion, but hey, USPS still gets a big market share.

They should certainly stay out of things that aren't. Transport to the city, for example, is NOT a public good. It's rival and excludable. Look it up.

For things that are public goods, subsidy + private provision works just fine.

Externalites will exist in ANY business. Do you think if the government operated coal plants they would cease to produce C02?

What is and is not a public good is up to the people imo.

Subsidy + private provision, is just basically corporate welfare, and increasing overhead and putting a profit motive in, your increasing the cost of government for no reason, and increasing cost to the consumer.

Externalities exist in every buisiness, but because the government is publically accountable and non profit, it can take these externalities into account.

What? They're both state owned

Yes, point is Norways Statoil is in a relatively corruption free democratic state, Pemex is in an extremely corrupt undemocratic state, see which socialized company benefits the electorate more.

I said that public companies in democratically acountable states run better than those in undemocraticallly accountable states, you asked for an example.

Do you have some examples of pure private health systems vs. pure public ones (i.e. a public system where government operates the hospitals, invents the drugs, etc., vs. one where govt does none of that).

:rolleyes:, the no-true-scotsman argument.

I have examples of mostly private vrs mostly public, and the mostly public wins out all the time by every measure.

as far as inventing drugs, alot of that is publically funded as well.

If you have $10 billion in capital tied up and you're making $1 million a year on it, this is an economic loss.

Overpaying workers is, I think, an example of the broken window fallacy. It would be no different from the government deciding it should pay 2x the market price for steel, under the theory that this would also stimulate the economy.

It would'nt stimulate the economy because steel manufacturing coporations are not automatically consumers, most of that money would just go to profit.

Workers are consumers. You can't be this economically blind.

if you have $10 billion tied up and your making $1 million on it, it depends on what your doing any why and the greater effect. Building roads is ALWAYS a loss, but the greater effect is a better economy.

[citation needed]

Tell me what part you don't believe, tell me I am wrong on the facts, then I'll find them for you, and you can apologise afterwords.

I'm not gonna look up stuff that you should know and is public knowledge, unless you aboslutely think I'm lying.

Judicator

18th October 2011, 09:38

What is and is not a public good is up to the people imo.

Subsidy + private provision, is just basically corporate welfare, and increasing overhead and putting a profit motive in, your increasing the cost of government for no reason, and increasing cost to the consumer.

Policy is up to the people, economic facts aren't. So no, what's a public good isn't up to the people.

Corporate welfare is unneeded subsidy. By definition in the case of public goods you have to subsidize or nobody will provide it.

Externalities exist in every buisiness, but because the government is publically accountable and non profit, it can take these externalities into account.

It can, or it can ignore them. Just as it can when the private sector has externalities.

Yes, point is Norways Statoil is in a relatively corruption free democratic state, Pemex is in an extremely corrupt undemocratic state, see which socialized company benefits the electorate more.

Oh, so you're saying corruption is bad. I agree.

I said that public companies in democratically acountable states run better than those in undemocraticallly accountable states, you asked for an example.

You said public was preferable to private because public was more "democratic"...as if laws governing private companies somehow aren't democratic.

I have examples of mostly private vrs mostly public, and the mostly public wins out all the time by every measure.

Do you anything beyond the usual canard of US vs. Europe :lol:

It would'nt stimulate the economy because steel manufacturing coporations are not automatically consumers, most of that money would just go to profit.

Workers are consumers. You can't be this economically blind.

The point was you are wasting resources either way. Waste is waste. If you want to induce spending, just write someone a check for $10. Paying them $10 to dig a hole and fill it up wastes their time (and still they end up with only $10).

if you have $10 billion tied up and your making $1 million on it, it depends on what your doing any why and the greater effect. Building roads is ALWAYS a loss, but the greater effect is a better economy.

Yes. You'd have to count all of the gains correctly.

Tell me what part you don't believe, tell me I am wrong on the facts, then I'll find them for you, and you can apologise afterwords.

I'm not gonna look up stuff that you should know and is public knowledge, unless you aboslutely think I'm lying.

I don't believe any of it, but for starters, let's look at the impact of water privatization in Argentina on cost, reliability, and service availability.

RGacky3

18th October 2011, 09:50

Policy is up to the people, economic facts aren't. So no, what's a public good isn't up to the people.

but what is and is not a public good is not an economic fact ... its subjective.

Corporate welfare is unneeded subsidy. By definition in the case of public goods you have to subsidize or nobody will provide it.

... How about the public sector ...

can, or it can ignore them. Just as it can when the private sector has externalities.

It can't ignore them becuase those externalities affect people that vote for them.

You said public was preferable to private because public was more "democratic"...as if laws governing private companies somehow aren't democratic.

They laws are, but the running of the company and distribution of the surplus and so on are not.

Do you anything beyond the usual canard of US vs. Europe :lol:

Its not just europe its every industrialized country with a public healthcare system, but yeah, they are 3 models in advanced economies and one works way way better .... Sorry.

The point was you are wasting resources either way. Waste is waste. If you want to induce spending, just write someone a check for $10. Paying them $10 to dig a hole and fill it up wastes their time (and still they end up with only $10).

Except paying them more does'nt mean they arn't creating wealth, what it does mean is that they'll stimulate the economy.

And no its not wasting resrouces, wasting resources is profit going to people sitting in their pool and CEOs. If you ca'nt see the difference between paying double for steel and double for labor, your juts economically illiterate.

Yes. You'd have to count all of the gains correctly.

No shit, which means taking into account externalities, which private buisinesses necessarily do not.

I don't believe any of it, but for starters, let's look at the impact of water privatization in Argentina on cost, reliability, and service availability.

It was in Boliva ... So what part do you not believe?

Judicator

18th October 2011, 19:17

but what is and is not a public good is not an economic fact ... its subjective.

No. Look up the term "public good." You've obviously never taken an econ class.

... How about the public sector ...

Doesn't pay for itself!

It can't ignore them becuase those externalities affect people that vote for them.

It routinely does.

They laws are, but the running of the company and distribution of the surplus and so on are not.

The owners have to run the company in a manner consistent with the law.

Its not just europe its every industrialized country with a public healthcare system, but yeah, they are 3 models in advanced economies and one works way way better .... Sorry.

They have a single payer system which pays some attention to costs. We have medicare and medicaid and so on which largely ignore costs. No surprise when governments ignore costs, things get more expensive.

Except paying them more does'nt mean they arn't creating wealth, what it does mean is that they'll stimulate the economy.

And no its not wasting resrouces, wasting resources is profit going to people sitting in their pool and CEOs. If you ca'nt see the difference between paying double for steel and double for labor, your juts economically illiterate.

Just give them $10, that will stimulate the economy. No need to have them engage in wasteful labor.

Government waste forces citizens to waste their tax dollars. Private waste only harms the individual who wastes it.

If you can't see that labor is a resource and that it's possible (and common) to waste labor, it's you, sir, who are ignorant.

No shit, which means taking into account externalities, which private buisinesses necessarily do not.

Building roads is a terrible example of something that generates externalities, unless you hugely expand your definition of an "externality". The beneficiaries are the people that use the roads.

t was in Boliva ... So what part do you not believe?

You said Argentina privatized everything, so let's talk about water privatization in Argentina. I believe it expanded service at better quality or lower cost. Prove me wrong :tt2:

RGacky3

18th October 2011, 23:23

No. Look up the term "public good." You've obviously never taken an econ class.

I'm talking about something provided by the public sector, aka the commons, not the strict definition, you know that.

Doesn't pay for itself!

Many times it does, and the USPS does.

The owners have to run the company in a manner consistent with the law.

Does'nt change what I said.

They have a single payer system which pays some attention to costs. We have medicare and medicaid and so on which largely ignore costs. No surprise when governments ignore costs, things get more expensive.

Medicare and medicaid not paying attention to costs, only really happens in medicare part D, which was a provision put in basically by big-pharma, and shows a decifit of democracy (and capitalism) not public industry, and even still medicare works better.

Just give them $10, that will stimulate the economy. No need to have them engage in wasteful labor.

Government waste forces citizens to waste their tax dollars. Private waste only harms the individual who wastes it.

If you can't see that labor is a resource and that it's possible (and common) to waste labor, it's you, sir, who are ignorant.

if you don't raise wages, that $10 will most likely be just wasted.

Private waste has tons of externalities, its not government waste if the public industry offsets its losses with gains (which is why Norways taxes don't have to be that high for example, because they socialize some productive industry as well).

Labor is a resource, but its a resource unlike any other resource, in that it spends money, buys houses, eats and so on, your playing semantics and ignoring the points.

Building roads is a terrible example of something that generates externalities, unless you hugely expand your definition of an "externality". The beneficiaries are the people that use the roads.

No shit, thats the externality, people who were not involved in the "deal" of building roads benefit from them.

You said Argentina privatized everything, so let's talk about water privatization in Argentina. I believe it expanded service at better quality or lower cost. Prove me wrong :tt2:

well ... they undid it, and there are reasons why, for example unequal access (http://www.dd-rd.ca/site/_PDF/publications/globalization/hria/argentina.pdf), a 177% raise in rates (http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/deadinthewater/argentina2.html), and the fact that the privatizations as a whole sent Argentina into the third world, boomed poverty and crashed the economy.

I'll accept your apology now.

Judicator

19th October 2011, 00:35

Many times it does, and the USPS does.

More often that not it doesn't.

Does'nt change what I said.

Sure it does. The nature of their operations held accountable by the law, which is monitored by the public. Government agencies face (mostly) the same laws as private companies.

if you don't raise wages, that $10 will most likely be just wasted.

Raising wages is a way to waste the $10.

Private waste has tons of externalities, its not government waste if the public industry offsets its losses with gains (which is why Norways taxes don't have to be that high for example, because they socialize some productive industry as well).

So what you're saying is that it's okay that state owned oil companies pollute, because they overpay their employees and that helps the economy.

Labor is a resource, but its a resource unlike any other resource, in that it spends money, buys houses, eats and so on, your playing semantics and ignoring the points.

Labor doesn't spend money, people do. So if you want people to spend money, just give them money.

No shit, thats the externality, people who were not involved in the "deal" of building roads benefit from them.

So you're taking option B) wildly expand the definition of externality. I suppose you'd say when I buy a Coke at the store, this is an externality (since I wasn't part of the deal to build the Coke bottling plant).

well ... they undid it, and there are reasons why, for example unequal access, a 177% raise in rates, and the fact that the privatizations as a whole sent Argentina into the third world, boomed poverty and crashed the economy.

Child mortality went down faster in districts with privatization (http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/gertler/working_papers/Water%20for%20Life%20June30.pdf).

Unequal access existed prior to privatization. Rates are going to be low when services are government subsidized, and Privatization in Argentina overall was good for everyone, when properly regulated (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=45216)

Klaatu

19th October 2011, 04:26

So you agree then I'm right about healthcare, it is not an example of privatization?

Again, what difference does this really make, when it is obvious to almost everyone that our PRIVATE system is failing miserably?
__________________________________________________ ___________________
On banking....[citation needed]
Are you claiming because a national bank was created at one point, the entire banking system was public?
Are you claiming that private banks in the US, and banking services, were completely unavailable prior to 1791?

I did not say that. Do not put words in my mouth.
__________________________________________________ ____________________
I think what really happened is you brought up banking as an example of "privatization,"
thinking it was an obvious example given the recent financial crisis, but then realized you
were wrong and are desperately trying to generate as much ad hoc evidence as possible.

I was trying to point out that privateers were (and are) literally sucking the wealth out of the working class.
I am NOT wrong about this. This is happening now more than ever. So get your head out of the sand already.
__________________________________________________ ____________________
Read the paper I linked earlier on Argentina, Chile, etc.

Those countries are not really democracies. The people have no say. Where the people have a say, they are going to work harder,
are happier, and support and trust their leaders more... is this what is happening today in good 'ol Capitalist USA? I think not.
Most people are very angry at the system, and with good cause! Just look around you and smell the coffee.
__________________________________________________ _____________

It's not going to hurt it, since the students are evidently crap to begin with. We have doubled
(or increased by a large factor) primary education funding since 1970 and have nothing to show for it:

You're really a piece of work, aren't you. I'll bet you even think that Asians are smart and Blacks are dumb.
Did you ever stop and try to analyse the REASONS why the educational system is in trouble?
Well I'll tell you it's a lot of things: lack of parenting, lack of discipline, a climate of personal entitlement,
a breakdown of morals, a breakdown of the family (which is due to the 'keep-up-with-the-jonses' mentality
in America since the 1960s) a lack of heroes and role models (When I was a kid, I admired Mister Spock,
with his technological prowness and superior intellect) When I was a kid, my grandfather gave me all of
my uncles' old chemistry and physics books, which I proceeded to read, cover-to-cover (I was truly a nerd)
This pushed me through school (it was hard, but worth it)

If you like, I can go on and on about the kids' lack of motivation in the classroom (care to hear some more?)

You can't just put up a chart and use it to justify the tearing down of our public school system.
Besides, if you're so concerned, why not try to become part of the solution, rather than point fingers
at the wrong targets (teachers and our unions)
__________________________________________________ ___________

Vouchers/privatized schools would allow the most highly qualified of the poor, who would otherwise be
condemned to a low quality school, to enjoy high quality education.

"Vouchers" mean that dirt-poor people would have to pay more (and they can't afford this!) And I do not believe
there are "low-quality-schools;" but I believe there are "low-quality parents" (don't you disagree?)
__________________________________________________ ___________

What level of education is a right? Is everyone entitled to know calculus?

Everyone is entitled to learn as much as they want to learn. This is a right
__________________________________________________ ___________
What's wrong with being uneducated?

We are becoming a more-advanced high-tech society, where a college education is a must.
And if you Capitalists would actually create low-skilled jobs here, then education is less important - but - you
dirty capitalists are hell-bent on shipping the low-skill jobs out of the country, in order to 'improve your
bottom line' that you do not give one iota of crap if this puts hard-working, low-skill workers out of work,
and thus contributes to the destruction of the American Dream for the masses (because you, as a capitalist,
only care about your Richie-Rich sponsors. Your job is to shine their shoes and kiss their asses)
__________________________________________________ ___________

Why does it make any sense as a society to spend money educating those who will get the lowest benefit from education
(for example, kids with downs). Why should we spend so much money on the worst students?

Maybe because they are people too?

Matthew 25:40
"And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as
ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."
__________________________________________________ ___________
One more thing on education: here in Michigan, the Republicans are gutting (not just cutting, but GUTTING)
school budgets and other things, in order to give BIG tax cuts to big corporations. Think about this: They are literally
stealing childrens' lunch money in order to give that money to companies which THEY THEMSELVES hold
stock shares in (or their friends and relatives hold stock shares in) - WOW

Something is really wrong with a system that robs the poor in order to enrich the wealthy.
Such a system is unsustainable at best, and is criminal at worst, and is subject to a revolution of justice.
And in the end, your capitalist criminals will be defeated!

RGacky3

19th October 2011, 08:58

More often that not it doesn't.

It did every year until the new law was put in place.

Sure it does. The nature of their operations held accountable by the law, which is monitored by the public. Government agencies face (mostly) the same laws as private companies.

Yes, but those privat ecompanies still control the surplus of productoin and distribute it FOR profit, when its a public company its not for profit and the distribution of hte surplus is subject to democratic oversight.

Raising wages is a way to waste the $10.

No, because it goes back into the economy, you still have NO concept of externalities.

So what you're saying is that it's okay that state owned oil companies pollute, because they overpay their employees and that helps the economy.

Actually companies like Statoil pollute less, because their policies are subject to democratic oversight.

Labor doesn't spend money, people do. So if you want people to spend money, just give them money.

Jesus Christ, working class people spend more of a percentage of their money than wealthy people, and people will be more likely to spend money if the increase of income is stable and not just a one off.

So you're taking option B) wildly expand the definition of externality. I suppose you'd say when I buy a Coke at the store, this is an externality (since I wasn't part of the deal to build the Coke bottling plant).

Except you paid for the coke ... And that cost is in the price of the coke.

People that drive on the road don't pay for it, sure they did through taxes in a way, but its not the same concept as one person buying a coke, we ALL pay and we ALL can use the roads, even those who did'nt pay the taxes at the time.

Child mortality went down faster in districts with privatization (http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/gertler/working_papers/Water%20for%20Life%20June30.pdf).

That is such a weak study, 5% (child mortality dropped worldwide from 12 out of 1000 to 7.6 out of 1000 from 1990 to 2010, which is more than 5%), there are tons and tons of other factors, and its water privitization ... BTW, privitization causes fast growth, everyone (especially Marxists) agree, but it leads to a crash in the end and an implosion. If water privitizatoin was so successfull then why were people protesting it in Argentina, forcing the government to re-socialisze, and why was a near revolution caused by it in Bolivia?

Oh and a lot of enviromental and health problems (manifest later) came with privitization as well (http://www.greeniacs.com/GreeniacsArticles/Water/Water-Privatization.html).

Unequal access existed prior to privatization. Rates are going to be low when services are government subsidized, and Privatization in Argentina overall was good for everyone, when properly regulated (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=45216)

Like social security privitization (http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/argentina_2002_04.pdf)?
... THe economy collapsed in 2001, and now Argentina is in the third world.

It happens EVERY time you follow the neo-liberal model, a decent slow growing country booms and grows rediculously fast (leaving a bunch behind in poverty on the way), and the crashes down to third world status.

But during the privitization Miriacle, when the GDP was booming, wages dropped 20%, unemployment went up to 14% and eventually up to 50%, the amount of people without proper housing went from 27% to 40%, the gap between the rich and the poor grew huge. the extreme poverty rate went up to 30% by the end of the experiment.

Judicator

20th October 2011, 04:55

It did every year until the new law was put in place.

The public sector lol? Which new law?

Yes, but those privat ecompanies still control the surplus of productoin and distribute it FOR profit, when its a public company its not for profit and the distribution of hte surplus is subject to democratic oversight.

And they must do so legally, in a manner consistent with the laws passed by representative government.

No, because it goes back into the economy, you still have NO concept of externalities.

The $10 was always "in the economy" :lol:. Your $10 bill is part of the money supply, and the money supply is part of the economy.

Actually companies like Statoil pollute less, because their policies are subject to democratic oversight.

Regulations on private companies are oversight put in place by democracies. If that's not democratic oversight than we're just arguing semantics.

Jesus Christ, working class people spend more of a percentage of their money than wealthy people, and people will be more likely to spend money if the increase of income is stable and not just a one off.

If I give you $10,000 now or $10 every hour for 1000 hours of digging holes, which do you think you'll blow through faster?

That is such a weak study, 5% (child mortality dropped worldwide from 12 out of 1000 to 7.6 out of 1000 from 1990 to 2010, which is more than 5%), there are tons and tons of other factors, and its water privitization ... BTW, privitization causes fast growth, everyone (especially Marxists) agree, but it leads to a crash in the end and an implosion. If water privitizatoin was so successfull then why were people protesting it in Argentina, forcing the government to re-socialisze, and why was a near revolution caused by it in Bolivia?

The drop in mortality was attributable to the presence of waterborne diseases and parasites.

People often protest when they lose handouts. Corporations complain and hire lobbyists when they lose subsidies. This doesn't mean subsidies are efficient.

Like social security privitization?
... THe economy collapsed in 2001, and now Argentina is in the third world.

Lol they are claiming privatization contributed to the crisis because it prevented Argentina from robbing the fund to pay its debts.

It happens EVERY time you follow the neo-liberal model, a decent slow growing country booms and grows rediculously fast (leaving a bunch behind in poverty on the way), and the crashes down to third world status.

Well, there's a thing called the business cycle, but to say low points constitute "third world status" is hyperbole.

Anyway, those boom-bust cycles sure have been bad for long run growth (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_wlLugVpN66Y/S6hVHZWmb-I/AAAAAAAAAN4/CKCUUvaoqRM/s1600-h/halfcentury1700-2030.jpg)

Image wasn't working before...
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_wlLugVpN66Y/S6hVHZWmb-I/AAAAAAAAAN4/CKCUUvaoqRM/s1600-h/halfcentury1700-2030.jpg

Revolution starts with U

20th October 2011, 05:00

If I give you $10,000 now or $10 every hour for 1000 hours of digging holes, which do you think you'll blow through faster?

Im glad you agree with us that, under capitalism, some people have to be kept in chains for their own good. ;)

RGacky3

20th October 2011, 09:20

The public sector lol? Which new law?

The USPS, the insane new pension law.

And they must do so legally, in a manner consistent with the laws passed by representative government.

ok, but its better for the public if the public has control of the surplus.

The $10 was always "in the economy" :lol:. Your $10 bill is part of the money supply, and the money supply is part of the economy.

Yeah, but if its sitting in some hedge fund its not being spent on goods and services and not creating jobs.

Regulations on private companies are oversight put in place by democracies. If that's not democratic oversight than we're just arguing semantics.

Yes but not democratic control of hte surplus, and thats what is important.

If I give you $10,000 now or $10 every hour for 1000 hours of digging holes, which do you think you'll blow through faster?

depends if have a job.

Plus its much better if those holes NEED to be dug, i.e. if its a productive activity.

The drop in mortality was attributable to the presence of waterborne diseases and parasites.

People often protest when they lose handouts. Corporations complain and hire lobbyists when they lose subsidies. This doesn't mean subsidies are efficient.

Public industry is not a handout.

Lol they are claiming privatization contributed to the crisis because it prevented Argentina from robbing the fund to pay its debts.

They would'nt have HAD to take loans.

Well, there's a thing called the business cycle, but to say low points constitute "third world status" is hyperbole.

Anyway, those boom-bust cycles sure have been bad for long run growth (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_wlLugVpN66Y/S6hVHZWmb-I/AAAAAAAAAN4/CKCUUvaoqRM/s1600-h/halfcentury1700-2030.jpg)

Image wasn't working before...

buisiness cycles ONLY come out due to large government intervention.

Judicator

25th October 2011, 03:02

ok, but its better for the public if the public has control of the surplus.

Money is money, doesn't matter if you get it via direct control or taxation. The only difference is that public ownership is disastrous for incentives while private ownership isn't.

Yeah, but if its sitting in some hedge fund its not being spent on goods and services and not creating jobs.

It's being added to the supply of loanable funds, pushing down the interest rate and inducing others to spend. Anyway, stimulus spending is highly overrated.

Yes but not democratic control of hte surplus, and thats what is important.

No, it really isn't.

depends if have a job.

Plus its much better if those holes NEED to be dug, i.e. if its a productive activity.

Unfortunately a lot of the time when government is involved, it isn't productive.

Public industry is not a handout.

They can set prices however they want on the taxpayer's dime, so yes it's a great instrument for handouts.

buisiness cycles ONLY come out due to large government intervention.

Nope, there were business cycles which came and went long before government even had the power to intervene. Government had minimal ability to intervene when federal spending was <5% of GDP, and yet we had business cycles that began and ended all the time.

RGacky3

25th October 2011, 08:21

It's being added to the supply of loanable funds, pushing down the interest rate and inducing others to spend. Anyway, stimulus spending is highly overrated.

Having money does'nt push down the interest rate, its not just supply and demand here, because hedge funds have other options than to lend it, like gamble in capital markets, and thats whats happening, financial institutions are sitting on tons of cash and its not being loaned out, why? Because people can't pay back, so they can make more money playing with securities.

Money is money, doesn't matter if you get it via direct control or taxation. The only difference is that public ownership is disastrous for incentives while private ownership isn't.

No it DOES matter, because it lets you control the externalities of the buisiness, and it lets you protect the industry and use it for the national well being.

Public ownership is'nt disastrous for incentives, many times private ownership is, just look at the health care industry, or just look at what happened when financial institutions in other countries got privatized (Argentina, Ireland, Iceland, Fanny and Freddy and so on).

No, it really isn't.

... Yes it is, there is a big difference between controling a company and just getting money from it.

Unfortunately a lot of the time when government is involved, it isn't productive.

And a lot of the time private corporations are invovled is destructive ...

They can set prices however they want on the taxpayer's dime, so yes it's a great instrument for handouts.

And Private corporations can set prices on the workers dime, anyway, your just talking semantics here, and being against "handouts" however the hell you define it, is a libertarian moral argument (somehow) and not an economic one.

Nope, there were business cycles which came and went long before government even had the power to intervene. Government had minimal ability to intervene when federal spending was <5% of GDP, and yet we had business cycles that began and ended all the time.

Such as? (one where the government did'nt come in).

Judicator

2nd November 2011, 03:51

Having money does'nt push down the interest rate, its not just supply and demand here, because hedge funds have other options than to lend it, like gamble in capital markets, and thats whats happening, financial institutions are sitting on tons of cash and its not being loaned out, why? Because people can't pay back, so they can make more money playing with securities.

Putting it in capital markets is going to push asset prices up and yields down.

No it DOES matter, because it lets you control the externalities of the buisiness, and it lets you protect the industry and use it for the national well being.

Protecting single industries is usually against the national interest - you hurt consumers with high prices.

Public ownership is'nt disastrous for incentives, many times private ownership is, just look at the health care industry, or just look at what happened when financial institutions in other countries got privatized (Argentina, Ireland, Iceland, Fanny and Freddy and so on).

Public owners can sustain a failing business forever, private owners can't. This creates an obvious incentive problem. Nobody is saying private businesses never fail.

Yes it is, there is a big difference between controling a company and just getting money from it.

You said "democratic control of the surplus"....if you tax companies or own them you're capturing (some of) the surplus.

And a lot of the time private corporations are invovled is destructive

Creative destruction is essential.

And Private corporations can set prices on the workers dime, anyway, your just talking semantics here, and being against "handouts" however the hell you define it, is a libertarian moral argument (somehow) and not an economic one.

It's not "the worker's dime" since the worker doesn't own the company. Also wage levels are set by the market, not the company.

There are plenty of economic arguments against handouts, one being that they discourage work.

Such as? (one where the government did'nt come in).

We should be money on this, but unfortunately we can't. Pretty much any commodity bubble before 1900.

NewLeft

2nd November 2011, 04:05

My experiences with private postal services have been good.. In comparison to a severely poorly funded public one which isn't saying much.

RGacky3

2nd November 2011, 11:20

Putting it in capital markets is going to push asset prices up and yields down.

It will make Capital gains go up, and Capital gains are responsible for much more of the profits in capital markets than dividends.

But that fact that you stated does'nt change a think of what I said.

Protecting single industries is usually against the national interest - you hurt consumers with high prices.

If your protect the industry without public control sure, if you have public control you can control the prices.

Again, lets take the example of healthcare, public healthcare systems ACROSS THE BOARD have better results and lower costs.

Public owners can sustain a failing business forever, private owners can't. This creates an obvious incentive problem. Nobody is saying private businesses never fail.

They can't sustain a failing buisiness forever because the voters will make demands. Also what the market calls "success" and "Failure" its not neccessarily what society or the economy callse "success" of "failure," for example the drug industry succedes by keeping drup prices artificially high.

You said "democratic control of the surplus"....if you tax companies or own them you're capturing (some of) the surplus.

Your taxing the profit, I'm talking about the surplus (in marxian terms), basically how the company is run. For exapmle democratic control would mean less management pay, less cost in advertising and so on (all part of the surplus, but not the profit).

Creative destruction is essential.

I did'nt say creative destruction, I said just pure destructive, tearing down a rainforest is'nt creative destruction, niether is dumping pollution in a river, neither is using child labor in sweatshops.

It's not "the worker's dime" since the worker doesn't own the company. Also wage levels are set by the market, not the company.

There are plenty of economic arguments against handouts, one being that they discourage work.

Wage levels are set by companies, the market is not some mystical force, and corporations have a HUGE sway over the "market," and it is the workers dime if they are cutting wages.

The argument that handouts discourage work has never been proven, and empiricla evidence points to the opposite, Norway has 2% unemployment, NO ONE needs to work to live decently in norway.

We should be money on this, but unfortunately we can't. Pretty much any commodity bubble before 1900.

Give me a specific example.

Judicator

3rd November 2011, 00:44

It will make Capital gains go up, and Capital gains are responsible for much more of the profits in capital markets than dividends.

But that fact that you stated does'nt change a think of what I said.

Yields go DOWN when there's more bond demand. Look up "flight to quality."

When yields go down, those whose discount rate was previously equal to the interest rate (say 4%), is now above it, so it makes more sense for them to spend now.

If your protect the industry without public control sure, if you have public control you can control the prices.

Yes, if you take money out of one pocket and put it in the other, you're doing something socially useful!

They can't sustain a failing buisiness forever because the voters will make demands. Also what the market calls "success" and "Failure" its not neccessarily what society or the economy callse "success" of "failure," for example the drug industry succedes by keeping drup prices artificially high.

Voters cannot demand their way out of economic reality. If the businesses activity is fundamentally unprofitable, no amount of votes are going to change that.

The drug industry succeeds because we have patents, and patents keep prices "artificially" high. You think we shouldn't have patents?

Your taxing the profit, I'm talking about the surplus (in marxian terms), basically how the company is run. For exapmle democratic control would mean less management pay, less cost in advertising and so on (all part of the surplus, but not the profit).

Surplus is what the capitalist skims off the top (capital gains and interest). Both of these are taxed. Management and advertising are operating expenses.

I did'nt say creative destruction, I said just pure destructive, tearing down a rainforest is'nt creative destruction, niether is dumping pollution in a river, neither is using child labor in sweatshops.

Bankrupting your competitors and destorying jobs :ohmy: is essential destruction.

Wage levels are set by companies, the market is not some mystical force, and corporations have a HUGE sway over the "market," and it is the workers dime if they are cutting wages.

The argument that handouts discourage work has never been proven, and empiricla evidence points to the opposite, Norway has 2% unemployment, NO ONE needs to work to live decently in norway.

Try opening a hospital and offering doctors 20k/year. See how much you can "set the wage."

It's not the worker's dime because it isn't his to begin with.

Lol @ quoting the unemployment. Of course if you're getting handouts, if you stopped working you'd simply stop looking for a job. This lowers unemployment.

Give me a specific example.

To clarify "one where the government did'nt come in"...here you mean one where the recession ended without government spending?

Anyway, the Panic of 1893.

RGacky3

3rd November 2011, 09:30

Yields go DOWN when there's more bond demand. Look up "flight to quality."

When yields go down, those whose discount rate was previously equal to the interest rate (say 4%), is now above it, so it makes more sense for them to spend now.

What does that have to do with what I'm talking about? I was talking about capital gains ...

Yes, if you take money out of one pocket and put it in the other, you're doing something socially useful!

nothing to do with what I said at all.

Voters cannot demand their way out of economic reality.

They can decide that economic reality.

If the businesses activity is fundamentally unprofitable, no amount of votes are going to change that.

No but votes can move the funds to an activity that is profitable, or socially needed.

The drug industry succeeds because we have patents, and patents keep prices "artificially" high. You think we shouldn't have patents?

I think we should have a democratic economy, juts getting rid of one aspect of capitalism won't fix it.

Surplus is what the capitalist skims off the top (capital gains and interest). Both of these are taxed. Management and advertising are operating expenses.

No not capital gains and interest, I'm talking about Marxian surplus which refers to everything beyond the actual production of the goods and services. I guess overhead and profit would be the non marxian term for surplus.

Bankrupting your competitors and destorying jobs :ohmy: is essential destruction.

Under Capitalism, as is pollution, as is minimizing wages, as is creating as Externalizing as much possible, as is minimizing cost by cutting saftey standard and so on, AND is doing things that will culmunatively destroy the economy.

Try opening a hospital and offering doctors 20k/year. See how much you can "set the wage."

It's not the worker's dime because it isn't his to begin with.

Individually I can't set the wage, the industry does.

Its the workers value to begin with, its labor that creates the wealth, but your just playing semantics here, the cost is saved by lowering wages ... so yeah, its on the workers dime.

Lol @ quoting the unemployment. Of course if you're getting handouts, if you stopped working you'd simply stop looking for a job. This lowers unemployment.

Well, only 2% unemployment and a booming ecnomy, and somehow we don't need these draconian capitalist incentives.

the Panic of 1893.

Your actually right, it took tons of strikes, and you also had mass migrations west, capitalism did'nt fix itself, you just had new natural markets for it to grow.

Judicator

4th November 2011, 02:54

What does that have to do with what I'm talking about? I was talking about capital gains ...

You were claiming putting money into asset classes wouldn't induce any spending. I was showing how it does.

nothing to do with what I said at all.

You're lowering prices to help the public...but this is done at the expense of the public since they are the ones who keep the profits from the company.

They can decide that economic reality.

No...they can't make an unproductive enterprise productive just by wishing it.

No but votes can move the funds to an activity that is profitable, or socially needed.

But usually they don't. Look at how successful voters have been today at moving money towards productive ends.

I think we should have a democratic economy, juts getting rid of one aspect of capitalism won't fix it.

Without patents? Fuck it...I'm not wasting my time innovating.

Under Capitalism, as is pollution, as is minimizing wages, as is creating as Externalizing as much possible, as is minimizing cost by cutting saftey standard and so on, AND is doing things that will culmunatively destroy the economy.

These are non-essential.

Individually I can't set the wage, the industry does.

Its the workers value to begin with, its labor that creates the wealth, but your just playing semantics here, the cost is saved by lowering wages ... so yeah, its on the workers dime.

Right, and you aren't the industry, so you don't set the wage.

It's not the particular worker's money...at all. Even if you think capital belongs to the worker who first made it or something wacky like that...that worker is long gone.

Well, only 2% unemployment and a booming ecnomy, and somehow we don't need these draconian capitalist incentives.

Somehow Norway is moderately capitalist.

Your actually right

I'm glad you think so. Next question?

RGacky3

4th November 2011, 09:20

You were claiming putting money into asset classes wouldn't induce any spending. I was showing how it does.

You said bond yeilds go down, if demand for them goes up .... That does'nt show jack shit.

You're lowering prices to help the public...but this is done at the expense of the public since they are the ones who keep the profits from the company.

Sure, but its a balancing act.

No...they can't make an unproductive enterprise productive just by wishing it.

Ok .... Thats not what I said.

But usually they don't. Look at how successful voters have been today at moving money towards productive ends.

In what country? In europe you have plenty of examples.

Without patents? Fuck it...I'm not wasting my time innovating.

nothing to do with what I said does it .... Innovations happened without patents, and they happen now even though most of the time the innovator is not the main profiter.

These are non-essential.

Actually they are essential, its called maximizing profits.

Right, and you aren't the industry, so you don't set the wage.

It's not the particular worker's money...at all. Even if you think capital belongs to the worker who first made it or something wacky like that...that worker is long gone.

The industry is the collective of Capitalists.

Look I'm not gonna get into the semantics and moralizing of who's money it is, the point is WAGES GO DOWN, so your cutting from the workers wages.

Somehow Norway is moderately capitalist.

Ok .... But its still proves the point against your nonsense incentives argument.

I'm glad you think so. Next question?

You did'nt read the rest of the sentance did you.

Judicator

5th November 2011, 01:04

You said bond yeilds go down, if demand for them goes up .... That does'nt show jack shit.

What do you think happens when the returns on savings go down? People save less! What do you think happens when people save less? They spend more!

Sure, but its a balancing act.

You're taking public money and giving it to the public....out one pocket in the other.

Thats not what I said.

Well that's what I said so I suppose then we don't disagree.

Actually they are essential, its called maximizing profits.

Right...they maximize profits, not pollution. Just slap a tax on pollution and suddenly it isn't profit maximizing... i.e. it isn't essential.

The industry is the collective of Capitalists.

Look I'm not gonna get into the semantics and moralizing of who's money it is, the point is WAGES GO DOWN, so your cutting from the workers wages.

And no single capitalist sets wages...like I've been saying all along. Thus if the prevailing market wage is $5 and he tries to pay $4 he's not going to have much luck.

You're not going to get into the fact that I'm right....fine.

You did'nt read the rest of the sentance did you.

Should I? You agreed with what I said based on your initial comment.

RGacky3

7th November 2011, 08:55

What do you think happens when the returns on savings go down? People save less! What do you think happens when people save less? They spend more!

if they are poor or working class perhaps, well, it depends on inflation as well as well as job security and so on.

The wealthy put more in capital markets, the rich arn't putting their money in saving accounts.

You're taking public money and giving it to the public....out one pocket in the other.

.... :confused: Ok, so private buisiness takes private money and gives it to private hands .... Your just playing semantics here.

Well that's what I said so I suppose then we don't disagree.

Ok, but why not argue with points I DID make.

Right...they maximize profits, not pollution. Just slap a tax on pollution and suddenly it isn't profit maximizing... i.e. it isn't essential.

yeah, because regulations are efficient, regulators are smarter than capitalists and cannot be bought.

Common now, now YOUR arguing for tax and regulations?

And no single capitalist sets wages...like I've been saying all along. Thus if the prevailing market wage is $5 and he tries to pay $4 he's not going to have much luck.

No, but the capitalist CLASS sets wages.

Which is what I've been saying all along.

Should I? You agreed with what I said based on your initial comment.

yes you should.

Judicator

8th November 2011, 02:33

if they are poor or working class perhaps, well, it depends on inflation as well as well as job security and so on.

The wealthy put more in capital markets, the rich arn't putting their money in saving accounts.

This is true for anyone. Even the rich have a discount rate!

The rich put their money in a lot of things; my points holds across asset classes. With equities you'll have lower earnings yield when equity prices go up.

Ok, so private buisiness takes private money and gives it to private hands .... Your just playing semantics here.

The (non-semantic) point is that wealth transfers alone don't create wealth. If anything they destroy it because of the perverse impact it has on incentives.

Ok, but why not argue with points I DID make.

Are you insisting I argue with everything you say?

yeah, because regulations are efficient, regulators are smarter than capitalists and cannot be bought.

Common now, now YOUR arguing for tax and regulations?

Do you know what the word "essential" means? An inherent attribute, not an incidental consequence. Coal plants produce pollution whether they're run by socialists or not.

I never said "let's abolish all regulations..."

No, but the capitalist CLASS sets wages.

Which is what I've been saying all along.

So we both agree, then, that individual companies do not have control over wages. Good.

yes you should.

I mean you agreed with what I wanted you to, so I see no reason to discuss further, but I'll humor you....

"it took tons of strikes, and you also had mass migrations west,"

Migration is a perfectly normal part of capitalism. Bargaining is a perfectly normal feature of capitalism.

"capitalism did'nt fix itself, you just had new natural markets for it to grow."

When capitalism grows, I call that fixing itself. Also the idea that there's such a thing as a "natural market" is silly. All markets are created by humans and therefore are artificial.

RGacky3

8th November 2011, 08:11

This is true for anyone. Even the rich have a discount rate!

The rich put their money in a lot of things; my points holds across asset classes. With equities you'll have lower earnings yield when equity prices go up.

Capital gains .... Thats where the rich are making most of their money, stocks ...

The (non-semantic) point is that wealth transfers alone don't create wealth. If anything they destroy it because of the perverse impact it has on incentives.

Ok, but what does that have to do with what I talked about? Where did I say that wealth transfers alone create wealth?

Are you insisting I argue with everything you say?

No I'm insisting you don't put up strawmen and deal with the points that were raised.

Do you know what the word "essential" means? An inherent attribute, not an incidental consequence. Coal plants produce pollution whether they're run by socialists or not.

Yes, but public institutions have the option of controlling the externalities, private instituttions do not.

"it took tons of strikes, and you also had mass migrations west,"

Migration is a perfectly normal part of capitalism. Bargaining is a perfectly normal feature of capitalism.

Yes, but you don't have that option now, there are very few untapped natural markets.

When capitalism grows, I call that fixing itself. Also the idea that there's such a thing as a "natural market" is silly. All markets are created by humans and therefore are artificial.

Its not fixing itself when it grows, the problem is just moved, also growth being the "solution" is unsustainable and ends up leading to collapse.

When I say natural markets I mean markets of goods and services and physical capital.

Judicator

8th November 2011, 20:04

Capital gains .... Thats where the rich are making most of their money, stocks ...

How does this in any manner refute the claim that when ROI falls people spend more?

Ok, but what does that have to do with what I talked about? Where did I say that wealth transfers alone create wealth?

You thought that having nationalized industries lower their prices was somehow valuable.

No I'm insisting you don't put up strawmen and deal with the points that were raised.

In other words, you want me to argue with everything you say! Why should I deal with points that don't contradict mine?

What's the strawman? Is quoting you when you say "I agree" now a strawman?

Yes, but public institutions have the option of controlling the externalities, private instituttions do not.

Public bureaucrats don't give a shit about externalities any more than private employees do. Both are subject to the same laws...but the bureaucracy simply wants to perpetuate itself at government expense while the private company actually cares about things like...commercial reasonableness!

Its not fixing itself when it grows, the problem is just moved, also growth being the "solution" is unsustainable and ends up leading to collapse.

When I say natural markets I mean markets of goods and services and physical capital.

Growth is just an increase in the level of aggregate economic activity. This isn't a problem.

The tablet market - this is a new market that didn't exist 10 years ago. Any e-commerce...didn't exist 20 years ago. I can go on and on but there are tons of new market all the time. There's no "impending collapse" of the internet :laugh:

RGacky3

8th November 2011, 22:45

How does this in any manner refute the claim that when ROI falls people spend more?

Except higher interest rates DOES NOT effect the ROI on capital gains, if anything it increases it because more people will but their money into stocks.

You thought that having nationalized industries lower their prices was somehow valuable.

If they can afford it, having a natinoalized industry not tied to purpetual profits and CEO pay, is better than having a private company tied to purpetual profits and CEO pay.

Public bureaucrats don't give a shit about externalities any more than private employees do. Both are subject to the same laws...but the bureaucracy simply wants to perpetuate itself at government expense while the private company actually cares about things like...commercial reasonableness!

Bullshit, public bureaucrats are subject to democratic accountability (in a funtioning democracy), private bureaucrats are not, they MUST maximise profits, Public companies do not need to maximise profits. But that does'nt mean that a public company does'nt need to worry about cost IF it is democratically accountable.

Growth is just an increase in the level of aggregate economic activity. This isn't a problem.

Its not a problem, but its not fixing the problem either, also it can be a problem when its building bubbles, creating externalities and heaping on systemic risk.

The tablet market - this is a new market that didn't exist 10 years ago. Any e-commerce...didn't exist 20 years ago. I can go on and on but there are tons of new market all the time. There's no "impending collapse" of the internet :laugh:

Sure, but those new markets are not enough to keep up with the growth need in the economy, thats why you have all these new derivative markets and the insane growth in the financial sector.

Judicator

9th November 2011, 05:20

Except higher interest rates DOES NOT effect the ROI on capital gains, if anything it increases it because more people will but their money into stocks.

Sometimes it seems like you're just picking terms at random from investopedia and stringing them together....

Anyway, we were talking about whether or not a change in the ROI (on any asset class) impacts the savings/spending choice. I'm claiming it does. The argument why is very straightforward, but first I want to know if you even understand what's being said here and whether or not you agree.

If they can afford it, having a natinoalized industry not tied to purpetual profits and CEO pay, is better than having a private company tied to purpetual profits and CEO pay.

Certainly not all private companies are perpetually profitable. The bad ones go bankrupt. This is why private companies are preferable to state owned ones, since the latter can simply use the government to cover their losses.

Bullshit, public bureaucrats are subject to democratic accountability (in a funtioning democracy), private bureaucrats are not, they MUST maximise profits, Public companies do not need to maximise profits. But that does'nt mean that a public company does'nt need to worry about cost IF it is democratically accountable.

They're both subject to the same laws. We don't elect bureaucrats...they're appointed. Often one of the goals of bureaucracy is to insulate itself from public opinion, allowing them to pursue their designs free from public choice. The difference is with a private, if the public doesn't like what they're offering, they simply stop buying it. Not the case with bureaucracy.

Its not a problem, but its not fixing the problem either, also it can be a problem when its building bubbles, creating externalities and heaping on systemic risk.

Again, sometimes it seems like you're just picking terms at random from investopedia and stringing them together....

How do you think growth alone causes systemic risk? How do you think growth alone causes externalities?

Sure, but those new markets are not enough to keep up with the growth need in the economy, thats why you have all these new derivative markets and the insane growth in the financial sector.

Lol "keep up with"? They ARE the growth in the economy. The pace at which more new stuff is produced is the growth rate of the economy.

RGacky3

9th November 2011, 07:59

Anyway, we were talking about whether or not a change in the ROI (on any asset class) impacts the savings/spending choice. I'm claiming it does. The argument why is very straightforward, but first I want to know if you even understand what's being said here and whether or not you agree.

No, you were arguing

"Yields go DOWN when there's more bond demand. Look up "flight to quality."

When yields go down, those whose discount rate was previously equal to the interest rate (say 4%), is now above it, so it makes more sense for them to spend now. "

And I was saying that bond yeilds going down, would more likely cause an increase in equity demand.

Your changing your arguments.

Certainly not all private companies are perpetually profitable. The bad ones go bankrupt. This is why private companies are preferable to state owned ones, since the latter can simply use the government to cover their losses.

The ones that are not purpetually profitable go bankrupt, infact they need a raising rate of profit.

If a private company is making 10% profit, but could be making 20%, by increasing pollution, firing half the workforce and making the rest work harder, and lowering saftey standards, they will ALWAYS do it, the public buisiness has the option of staying with 10% profit.

They're both subject to the same laws. We don't elect bureaucrats...they're appointed.

By people we elect, but I owuld be more direct electoral accountability, i.e. a much more democratic system.

Often one of the goals of bureaucracy is to insulate itself from public opinion, allowing them to pursue their designs free from public choice. The difference is with a private, if the public doesn't like what they're offering, they simply stop buying it. Not the case with bureaucracy.

The goal of the public sector is to keep its place as a public sector industry, meaning it has to please the electorate, who can de-fund them or get rid of them.

The private industries DO worry about consumers, but not about the externalities, systemic risk and so on.

THOSE are the laws that are different.

How do you think growth alone causes systemic risk? How do you think growth alone causes externalities?

Growth alone does'nt cause systemic risk, and along does'nt cause externalities, but many times it does, many times when growth comes from increased productivity it increases the risk of having a capital/labor inbalance, a demand deficiency, pollution, many times growth comes due to more leveraged risk and so on.

Shit see growth from 2001-2007, its not that hard.

Lol "keep up with"? They ARE the growth in the economy. The pace at which more new stuff is produced is the growth rate of the economy.

No shit, but if there are no new demands for goods and services in a certain year, i.e. no growth demand, the economy still needs to find a place to grow otherwise it will snowball down, so then you need things like financial markets, exports, whatever, something to keep the growth going, if the natural markets (demand for goods and services) are not growing.

Judicator

10th November 2011, 01:04

No, you were arguing

"Yields go DOWN when there's more bond demand. Look up "flight to quality."

When yields go down, those whose discount rate was previously equal to the interest rate (say 4%), is now above it, so it makes more sense for them to spend now. "

And I was saying that bond yeilds going down, would more likely cause an increase in equity demand.

Your changing your arguments.

I made points about earnings yields as well, read again. I was making the point for bonds...fixed income is a MASSIVE component of the financial markets, probably larger than equities, so I don't understand your fixation on equities as a place for the rich to put their money.

Anyway, do you or don't you think that a change in the ROI (on any asset class) impacts the savings/spending choice?

The ones that are not purpetually profitable go bankrupt, infact they need a raising rate of profit.

Once you start losing money, you usually go bankrupt, yes!

f a private company is making 10% profit, but could be making 20%, by increasing pollution, firing half the workforce and making the rest work harder, and lowering saftey standards, they will ALWAYS do it, the public buisiness has the option of staying with 10% profit.

If the private company could make 20% profit by providing goods and services that people actually want, it will do so. The public business will maintain its 10% rate and not enter these new markets (since it has no incentive to make more money).

If safety standards are too low workers simply won't take the job. There's a very well documented wage premium for jobs that involve higher risk of death (fishing, forestry, etc).

By people we elect, but I owuld be more direct electoral accountability, i.e. a much more democratic system.

Often regulatory agencies are designed to AVOID democratic accountability precisely so they can do "what is best" regardless of what current populist leaders want. Not to mention regulatory capture is more disastrous than no regulation at all.

The goal of the public sector is to keep its place as a public sector industry, meaning it has to please the electorate, who can de-fund them or get rid of them.

The private industries DO worry about consumers, but not about the externalities, systemic risk and so on.

THOSE are the laws that are different.

The goal of the public sector is to perpetuate its own existence at taxpayer expense. People tolerate wasteful and inefficient policies because a single massive waste by the government really only amounts to few dollars out of your pocket. A government enterprise literally flushing $1 billion down the toilet every year costs the average citizen only $3/year...so it doesn't make a lot of sense for them to waste time thinking about it or protesting. The problem is that when you add up all of these programs they do amount to real money...but good luck following the accounting of any of them (consider the DoD budget...good luck figuring out exactly where that's going!).

Shit see growth from 2001-2007, its not that hard.

GDP growth in the US from 2001-2007 wasn't anything special.

No shit, but if there are no new demands for goods and services in a certain year, i.e. no growth demand, the economy still needs to find a place to grow otherwise it will snowball down, so then you need things like financial markets, exports, whatever, something to keep the growth going, if the natural markets (demand for goods and services) are not growing.

So there are 3 things the economy can do: grow, stagnate, or shrink. From this you can see that not growing doesn't imply shrinkage.

RGacky3

10th November 2011, 08:30

I made points about earnings yields as well, read again. I was making the point for bonds...fixed income is a MASSIVE component of the financial markets, probably larger than equities, so I don't understand your fixation on equities as a place for the rich to put their money.

Anyway, do you or don't you think that a change in the ROI (on any asset class) impacts the savings/spending choice?

What I'm saying is that if you change the ROI ON BONDS (by changing interest rates), people will more likely put it into equities rather than spend it.

Just changing interest rates on bonds is'nt gonna increase spending on its own.

You wern't talking about ROI on any assets, you were specifically talking about lowering bond demand by raising interest rates, and assuming that it would lead to more spending by itself is just rediculous.

Once you start losing money, you usually go bankrupt, yes!

Or start making money slower than other people.

If the private company could make 20% profit by providing goods and services that people actually want, it will do so. The public business will maintain its 10% rate and not enter these new markets (since it has no incentive to make more money).

That has NOTHING to do with my post, at all.

If safety standards are too low workers simply won't take the job. There's a very well documented wage premium for jobs that involve higher risk of death (fishing, forestry, etc).

Not when you have close to 20% real unemployment.

Often regulatory agencies are designed to AVOID democratic accountability precisely so they can do "what is best" regardless of what current populist leaders want. Not to mention regulatory capture is more disastrous than no regulation at all.

Your using the word regulatory capture wrong, which is what happens when they DON'T act in the interst of hte public and instead in the interest of buisiness.

I'm saying regulation is subject to regulatory capture, which is why socialized industry is better for national industries.

The goal of the public sector is to perpetuate its own existence at taxpayer expense.

Thats YOUR false premis.

People tolerate wasteful and inefficient policies because a single massive waste by the government really only amounts to few dollars out of your pocket.

In funtioning democracies, no they don't.

A government enterprise literally flushing $1 billion down the toilet every year costs the average citizen only $3/year...so it doesn't make a lot of sense for them to waste time thinking about it or protesting.

If people suggest using the money in a more beneficial way people would vote for that ...

The problem is that when you add up all of these programs they do amount to real money...but good luck following the accounting of any of them (consider the DoD budget...good luck figuring out exactly where that's going!).

The US is a bad example of that, the DoD is full of regulatory capture, and full of private interests, a better example is the public healthcare systems of europe, or national industries of parts of europe (since we're talking about the first world presumably).

GDP growth in the US from 2001-2007 wasn't anything special.

Financial profits were.

So there are 3 things the economy can do: grow, stagnate, or shrink. From this you can see that not growing doesn't imply shrinkage.

when an economy begins to shrink, it almost NEVER just shrinks a little and stabalizes, it collapses, the same with stagnation.

RGacky3

10th November 2011, 09:15

BTW, public sector employees are paid less than private sector employees. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/07/government-employees-23-percent-less-private-sector_n_1080108.html?ref=business) That goes for most countries as well.

Judicator

11th November 2011, 03:32

What I'm saying is that if you change the ROI ON BONDS (by changing interest rates), people will more likely put it into equities rather than spend it.

Just changing interest rates on bonds is'nt gonna increase spending on its own.

You wern't talking about ROI on any assets, you were specifically talking about lowering bond demand by raising interest rates, and assuming that it would lead to more spending by itself is just rediculous.

And when they put it into equities the same thing happens as you get with bonds (dividend yields down). Read again. I made points about several asset classes, bonds being a large one. I never mentioned anything about the federal reserve.

Lowering interest rates does lead to more spending. The idea that people ignore ROI when deciding whether or not to invest is absurd.

That has NOTHING to do with my post, at all.

It has to do with the fact that you're ignoring all of the benefits of private companies.

Not when you have close to 20% real unemployment.

Wrong. Unemployment might reduce or flatten wage levels, but it doesn't eliminate wage differentials between different types of jobs.

Your using the word regulatory capture wrong, which is what happens when they DON'T act in the interst of hte public and instead in the interest of buisiness.

"Not to mention regulatory capture is more disastrous than no regulation at all." Whats wrong with that statement?

I'm saying regulation is subject to regulatory capture, which is why socialized industry is better for national industries.

Socialized industry has no incentive to innovate, since it isn't threatened with the prospect of obsolescence, bankruptcy, or competition, because there is no competition and they have a captive market.

Thats YOUR false premis.

It's true. It's just what public officials do. Look at the behavior of politicians.

In funtioning democracies, no they don't.

A functioning democracy is a rational one. Why should rational people waste time thinking about $3?

If people suggest using the money in a more beneficial way people would vote for that ...

No, they wouldn't. The electorate simply isn't educated or intelligent enough to even make decisions about what's good policy and what isn't.

The US is a bad example of that, the DoD is full of regulatory capture, and full of private interests, a better example is the public healthcare systems of europe, or national industries of parts of europe (since we're talking about the first world presumably).

The DoD isn't a regulatory agency...

Plenty of European healthcare is simply public funding + heavy regulation, rather than being a "nationalized industry."

Some of the largest nationalized industries in the world, national oil companies, have by and large been a disaster: http://www.economist.com/node/7270301

Financial profits were.

So? Unless GDP is growing a lot it's not massive economic growth.

when an economy begins to shrink, it almost NEVER just shrinks a little and stabalizes, it collapses, the same with stagnation.

Except in the case of every recession that's ever ended. Even countries whose currencies have collapsed have recovered. Even advanced countries who were blown apart by war have recovered.

Anyway, define "collapse" and then name a few examples.