Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I try to stay out of political discussions for the most part. But ocasionally I find myself getting caught up in some political debates. And my first go to solution is to privatize. This immediately ends the conversation, or I get called all sorts of idiots.
I find it odd that Americas will agree social security is a disaster, the police force is a disaster, all of our social programs are a disaster. Yet when someone talks about the power of the market, people are automatically scared.
So I ask, why is America so afraid to attempt privatization? Why do we keep looking towards government for solutions? And why do we keep trying the same "solutions" over and over again that has netted very few gains or progress?
Likely because government agencies and politicians can be held accountable for their actions, but private companies cannot (unless we rely on the same corrupt or incompetent politicians to investigate them). Our government is run under the theory of democracy, but corporations are by nature a dictatorship.
I try to stay out of political discussions for the most part. But ocasionally I find myself getting caught up in some political debates. And my first go to solution is to privatize. This immediately ends the conversation, or I get called all sorts of idiots.
I find it odd that Americas will agree social security is a disaster, the police force is a disaster, all of our social programs are a disaster. Yet when someone talks about the power of the market, people are automatically scared.
So I ask, why is America so afraid to attempt privatization? Why do we keep looking towards government for solutions? And why do we keep trying the same "solutions" over and over again that has netted very few gains or progress?
I can see why you get wrapped up in such arguments...because you make ridiculous claims.
1. Most Americans do not agree that Social Security is a disaster.
2. Most Americans do not agree that "the police force is a disaster".
3. Most people do not agree that "all of our social programs are a disaster".
Second, why don't you look at how privatization worked the last time with private retirement investments and the falling stock market. Talk about a disaster!
Because in almost every instance privatizing governmental functions ends up costing more than doing the work in-house.
From trash collection to building services to military mess halls. This doesn't happen in 100% of the cases but overall, yes.
An example, we privatized trash collection several years ago. Even with competitive bidding the cost is higher, by about 50%, than it would have been if the Town had kept doing it.
Around the same time the decision was made to contract out sewer and water system operations and maintenance. That cost doubled in two years. It is cheaper to have our own trained staff and equipment.
You're in Philadelphia. What has the cost of all the charter schools been (keeping in mind that in PA charter/cyber schools per pupil cost is roughly twice that of public schools without having to provide services to the most difficult students)?
Actually, the one area in which privatization probably works is that the public is not paying retirement and health benefits. On the other hand, that means that many people are getting lousy retirement and health benefits.
Because the education system in this country, over the last 2-3 decades have stopped teaching children how to think, and are teaching children WHAT to think. One of the key pieces of propaganda that has been used to indoctrinate our children is that it is only equality means EQUAL OUTCOME NOT EQUAL OPPORTUNITY.
That is why not keeping score at sporting events and giving participation trophies is part of culture now. It is the reason for victim theories like "white privilege" (yet reality is that Asians attain more scholastic and financial success than whites) are used to complain about unequal outcomes.
Privatization leads to winners and losers. Privatization leads to wealth for some and not everyone.
The current generations (X, Y and millennials) view government as a necessary factor in fulfilling their vision of equal outcome. Government can redistribute wealth. Government can subsidize businesses that are not viable on their own merit and regulate competitors out of business. Government can legislate behavior and enforce lower standards for certain victim classes to allow them to an advantage that they would not otherwise get in a competitive private arena.
The historical reality that government's social engineering has been an absolute failure is not a stumbling block, because, as I said, today's generations are not equipped to use logic and reason to see that reliance on government for an equal outcome results in a much worse outcome for everyone instead of outcomes based on merit that benefits all of society.
1. Actually, there has been a big movement toward teaching students critical thinking skills. Earlier generations learned "facts" they didn't know how to use. "Facts" (note the parentheses) in textbooks should be secondary to thinking.
2. Every time I attend high school and college sporting events, they're still keeping score. And when I'm doing my indoor track circuits at the local Y and they're having elementary-age sporting events, they're still keeping score.
3. It is not a "reality" that social engineering has been "an absolute failure". You just don't like it.
I'm for privatizing everything. You either fund things on a voluntary, mutual basis where both parties consent...or you fund it by forcefully taking from everybody whether they consent or not.
That's the moral side of it, but it makes more practical sense as well. Anytime you have a monopoly like the state controlling a service, prices go up and quality goes down. At the very least, innovation is stifled and slowed.
A lot of private service providers are forced to raise prices due to the regulations and conditions being imposed on them, and costs go way above what they would normally be. Then you'll have people blame it on privatization or the free market..
No, that's not the only "moral side" to it.
01-21-2016, 10:23 PM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person
Because in almost every instance privatizing governmental functions ends up costing more than doing the work in-house.
This.
I look at my own state and the disaster of privatization.
Road construction - project to improve a road to the coast was contracted out. Now it's over budget by more than double, six+ years behind schedule, and what the private company did manage to build was largely damaged by landslides because they didn't bother with proper geological surveys. The state finally took the project over and it's now proceeding on schedule and on budget. Privatization was a complete disaster that ended up costing a small fortune.
Then there was the healthcare exchange debacle, a 200 million dollar disaster that resulted in a non-functioning website. It was eventually dumped in favor of the federal healthcare exchange (itself a contracted out debacle but at least it functions) and now the state and Oracle are fighting each other in court and the feds are investigating possible criminal wrongdoing.
Even when privatization isn't such a comical failure, it still winds up being more expensive. It does nothing more than add on an extra layer between the money and the people doing the work, and everyone involved wants their cut.
The only way the public sector gets money is through taxation, which is forcefully taking money from people whether they agree to it or not. It's the mafia model. The private sector can only get your money if you decide to give it to them (or by bribing the state to legislate money to them...forcing people to buy their insurance or creating excessive regulations to prevent competition from springing up). I don't see how there's any argument against that fact.
Great write up, but what you're overlooking are markets. That is KEY to privatization. And this is the reason why privitization is just flat out better. Why does social security even exist in the first place? The goal is for retirement. There are far better investments for retirement than social security. And it is varied. So again, do we even need social security in the first place? I don't think so.
Are businesses for profit? Yes. And that's a good thing because they care about what you spend. If there was an alternative to Wal-Mart and it ate into Wal-Mart market share. Oh you can believe Wal-Mart would get it's act together. Because at the end of the day, they care about you spending money at their stores.
You mention government. The government does not exist for profit. And that's a problem. Because one has to ask, "why does it exist". And I will always state, the government exist soley to serve the best interest of government. How that "best interest" takes form can vary. But I can tell you this, citizens have 0 bargaining power when it comes to government services. The government will get your money, and there is nothing you can do about it. So you really have no choice. And that's important. The government doesn't have to work in your best interest to "stay in business".
No, it is not. Privatization is simply a concept you like.
If you don't know why Social Security exists, go back to the days when we didn't have it. Then you'll understand. Millions of Americans -- including me -- lost much of our savings for retirement during a major recession. But Social Security kept on flowing. Since you dislike Social Security so much, may I suggest that when you begin receiving it, you donate it back to the government, and rely only on your personal investments. Oh heck, I'll let you keep the amount of dollars you paid into it, but not a penny more.
Your Wal-Mart example is faulty. Only about 50% of businesses survive 4-5 years.
No, government exists to "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". Business never does -- or even attempts to do -- any of those things.
We have created a system that rewards laziness. A system where we tell people there are jobs jobs jobs! The economy is great! Yet, the people that should be working these jobs scream foul because they don't pay enough. Because they can make more on entitlements than work because the wages are low. Why are they low? Because this same government allows illegals to pour across the border as cheap labor. We post signs at parks not to feed the animals or they will become dependent on food from humans. How is this different than what we have done with government entitlements.
We have become dependent on handouts and the middle class no longer USA driving force in the GDP.
Give a man a fish he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish he will feed his family for a lifetime.
How much does someone make on 'entitlements?'
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
