Thread: Socialism

I was referring to "owning" the physical layer of infrastructure and leaving "content" provision to the private sector. Why would a cable company not be better off if they don't need to lay cable due it being a municipal concern?

Originally Posted by Forplay

Maybe, If one municipal government could provide the physical infrastructure, and another municipal chose to privatize it all, the price difference to the residents of each municipality my be considerably different. Municipals today are outsourcing everything they can to private companies as they find when they put is out for public bid the prices to perform the work are far cheaper than what the municipality is paying for the same service doing it themselves.

So if you live in the wrong municipality you may be paying far more than the other guy.

Actually, at least in my instance, I am amazed every time I open my local city utility bill. I am paying prices today that I have not seen since the 1980s.

Also, I am always a bit skeptical about the privatizing solution. It never seems to actually work out better, and rarely is it cheaper, but the friends of the politicians all seem to get richer quicker.

Its real easy to beat up on government workers, but they do a pretty good job generally and they get no credit for it.

For example, go ahead, name an instance of privatizing a government agency's services that has actually provided better service at a cheaper cost. Usually when people tell me about an instance they believe proves their case, the facts are that services are cut back, usually with shorter hours and with rationing of services by creating hard-to-surmount roadblocks for citizens. Quite often, essential services that have been routinely supplied are just redefined as no longer needed, and then there is a big PR push about what a fantastic job they are doing.

Here's one of my favorite examples: Halliburton contracted to do laundry for our soldiers in Iraq. Huge savings, right? We taxpayers were (may still be, for all I know) paying $100/pound for laundry. A real winner, eh?

It can be useful for government to build infrastructure and then collect fees for its use. Although this should not prevent companies from building their own if they wish.

I don't have a problem with elements of socialism if it doesn't have much of an impact on our freedoms. Government building things is fine, as long as that doesn't preclude the private sector from building the same things if what the government built doesn't work for them.

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

Its real easy to beat up on government workers, but they do a pretty good job generally and they get no credit for it.

For example, go ahead, name an instance of privatizing a government agency's services that has actually provided better service at a cheaper cost. Usually when people tell me about an instance they believe proves their case, the facts are that services are cut back, usually with shorter hours and with rationing of services by creating hard-to-surmount roadblocks for citizens. Quite often, essential services that have been routinely supplied are just redefined as no longer needed, and then there is a big PR push about what a fantastic job they are doing.

This is one example where liberals have been proven right and conservatives should really abandon this.

The problem, as we've discovered, is that government isn't just bad at customer service and holding down costs because they are the government. It's because the incentives don't lead to that. Putting that same service in private hands doesn't change the incentives, especially if the government is the buyer of services and not the consumer.

The only government services that should be privatized are ones that the private sector already supplies. For example, the government can and probably should get out of the package delivery business.

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

Also, I am always a bit skeptical about the privatizing solution. It never seems to actually work out better, and rarely is it cheaper, but the friends of the politicians all seem to get richer quicker.

indeed. "Privatizing" is almost never simply a matter of government ceasing to provide a service. The transition usually involves some kind of state granted monopoly, or something very near a monopoly, that is handed out as a favor to those with influence and lobbying clout. The worst cases are those where a "partnership" between government and private business is featured (usually touted as though it were a move toward free markets - which it never is).

In my opinion, if the state is going to be heavily involved in some service, they should do it properly as an entirely tax-funded endeavor, and avoid entanglements with private industry. If they're not going to be involved anymore, privatizing should be a simple as no longer providing the service, and letting the private sector deal with it as it will. But that's almost never how it happens.

Here's one of my favorite examples: Halliburton contracted to do laundry for our soldiers in Iraq. Huge savings, right? We taxpayers were (may still be, for all I know) paying $100/pound for laundry. A real winner, eh?

Exactly. This is why I'm open minded about socialism. It goes against my ideals in several ways, but I think it would probably be better than the corporatist ripoff we have now.

Originally Posted by adaher

...

The only government services that should be privatized are ones that the private sector already supplies. For example, the government can and probably should get out of the package delivery business.

A perfect example of what I was saying. Fed Ex and UPS have done a fantastic job with what they are doing. For businesses and volume shippers, they are a fantastic solution. I am saying nothing derogatory about them.

On the other hand, I have shipped two packages recently. One, I took to the post office, paid $5.70, asked for no special services, and it was delivered to a private residence in two days. The other package weighed less and was in a smaller box, and I took that to UPS. That cost me $14.50 and took three days to be delivered.

I can only presume that if the USPS was out of the picture the already high price would be even higher, and the service slower.

USPS operates at a loss, with taxpayer subsidies making up the losses. Yes, without USPS it would seem more expensive, but we wouldn't be paying taxes for that particular service anymore.

But dblack made good points too. If the government is the customer, the same incentives apply when a business is privatized, plus privatization usually involves granting a monopoly, and monopolies have the same problems governments do.

Originally Posted by adaher

It can be useful for government to build infrastructure and then collect fees for its use. Although this should not prevent companies from building their own if they wish.

I don't have a problem with elements of socialism if it doesn't have much of an impact on our freedoms. Government building things is fine, as long as that doesn't preclude the private sector from building the same things if what the government built doesn't work for them.

Infrastructure is an example of where it is not cost effective to duplicate services; it is a rationale for monopolies. In my opinion, the public sector can better ensure coverage on a seven days a week and twenty-four hour basis.

And a private company having their own infrastructure doesn't do anything to take away from that. And the inefficiency of duplication is usually made up by the efficiencies that result from competition. The government should never fear competition, and should certainly never outlaw it.

Originally Posted by Dutch

On the other side I believe government can do good for the welfare of people by maintaining a (not too big) social security system. I think equality should not be a goal of government, rather it should provide a safety net for the very poor.

Government's humanitarian job should be equality and the elimination of the poor. Eliminating the poor can be accomplished by lowering taxes as conservatives suggest. Except we lower taxes for all equally, down to those that the poor can afford to pay. If the amount is only $250. a year, or $100. a year, we will all pay the same amount, and no deductions or other loop holes favoring anybody. A once a year tax.

Now we both know federal government can't be supported by a $100. from each individual, so it would be in the richer people's interests to develop the poor, get them working & housed,....so they can pay more taxes,....so federal government can once again work for them.


Much of the running of a country can be reduced to a common formula for allocation of labor and goods, based on the GNP, and local pricing. Capitalism cannot be regulated this way and evolves out of chaos in the free market, which ever way the wind blows on any given day.

How many private companies can afford to duplicate potable and waste water management services; or energy provision, or cable services? If the public sector was responsible for that layer of infrastructure, why do you believe any private sector would be worse off?

Most cannot, but if they choose too, I don't see an issue. I believe Disney built everything in Celebration, FL, and it's one heck of an impressive achievement.

Originally Posted by danielpalos

How many private companies can afford to duplicate potable and waste water management services; or energy provision, or cable services? If the public sector was responsible for that layer of infrastructure, why do you believe any private sector would be worse off?

The private sector should never be entrusted with this nation's national security issues. In the case of energy, the private sector has allowed citizens to die in extreme heat & cold.

In the case of oil, the private sector came close to shutting the American economy down, causing massive lay-offs, business closures, and weakening banks. It was the precursor to our current economic woes. Further, we should have national oil & lower the costs of fuels to our citizens.

In the case of the military, the private sector has gouged Americans with corruption, and costs us needless billions that service members could have provided for themselves. Currently there are more contractor boots on the ground in Afghanistan than US Troop boots. Further, private security costs 5-10 times more than a trained US Troop.

And the private sector cannot meet our national needs, nor will they supply them without a demand, and many things America needs now do not show a marketable demand for profit. This has left America technologically behind in the World. We need 300 nuclear plants, 300 desalination plants, and a glass highway that is far advanced of anything conceived to move transportation in America. No private company can do that.

This problem of "demand" used by capitalists is killing America.