BDashe 0 #126 October 14, 2009 Quote There is nothing that makes the private sector inherently more efficient than the public sector (or vice versa). There is: competition.So there I was... Making friends and playing nice since 1983 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #127 October 14, 2009 QuoteQuote There is nothing that makes the private sector inherently more efficient than the public sector (or vice versa). There is: competition. Competition in the private sector is countered by factors in the public side such as desire to be re-elected, need to stretch the budget to accomplish organization's mission, etc. Efficiency can be found (and can be found to be absent) in both sectors.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #128 October 15, 2009 QuoteNo, the right doesn't promote fewer programs than the left. They promote different programs (and often spend more money on them) than the left. absolutely, both are socially liberal/activist There is nothing that makes the private sector inherently more efficient than the public sector (or vice versa). absolutely wrong, the profit motive drives efficiency, government is not accountable to be efficient as they don't spend their own money ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #129 October 15, 2009 Quoteneed to stretch the budget to accomplish organization's mission, etc. nonsense private sector this happens as they have limited resources public sector - they demand a bigger budget (due to the illusion of unlimited resources) as for gov reps having desire to be re-elected encouraging efficiency is nonsense also - what they do is add inefficiency by target benefits to special groups that net them more votes at the expense of the tax base of those not entitled - as demonstrated by history our government is about which social programs (left vs right) are prioritized to spend all the money on - instead of using the money efficiently on a minimum level of service -----that does not lend itself to efficiency, just the opposite ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #130 October 15, 2009 Quoteabsolutely, both are socially liberal/activist Yep, including the military, just another social program. Quoteabsolutely wrong, the profit motive drives efficiency, government is not accountable to be efficient as they don't spend their own money Right, and it drives greed too. Like the guy at work who fell off a ladder at work and got a compound fracture in his arm. Surgery and a month on the job light duty, the co decided he was broken and shitcanned him. Corporations only care about people if they can profit from them, otherwise they are garbage to them. Money pools in corporations with a few people, money distributes in gov programs, gov jobs, etc. Bottom line is neither are more efficent at the task, corps are more efficient at eliminating people to employ so the profit is more centralized, creating a disparity of wealth. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #131 October 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteThere is nothing that makes the private sector inherently more efficient than the public sector (or vice versa). absolutely wrong, the profit motive drives efficiency, government is not accountable to be efficient as they don't spend their own money Reality is not consistent with your comments.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #132 October 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteneed to stretch the budget to accomplish organization's mission, etc. nonsense private sector this happens as they have limited resources public sector - they demand a bigger budget (due to the illusion of unlimited resources) as for gov reps having desire to be re-elected encouraging efficiency is nonsense also - what they do is add inefficiency by target benefits to special groups that net them more votes at the expense of the tax base of those not entitled - as demonstrated by history our government is about which social programs (left vs right) are prioritized to spend all the money on - instead of using the money efficiently on a minimum level of service -----that does not lend itself to efficiency, just the opposite Just a quick counter example to your (incorrect) claims: Medicare has lower administration costs (i.e. operates more efficiently) than private insurance companies, in general.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #133 October 19, 2009 QuoteI have a cousin-in-law who's a big Republikan high roller and personal pal of GW Bush, and he openly talks about the joys of a single partei state, so don't tell me it isn't so And I dated a girl that had BIG connections in the Democrat party and they said the same things. That does not make that true either. One story does not equal a data set. Quote Now that the Republikans have been voted back into minority status, they are more than willing to bring the roof down on all our heads if it can return them to POWER - which is all they give a shit about Dems did the same thing."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #134 October 19, 2009 QuoteAre you an American or a republican? I'm an Ampublicratarianistiva but only fiscally ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,447 #135 October 19, 2009 QuoteAmpublicratarianistivaI think I had one of those the last time I went to Starbuck's. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #136 October 19, 2009 QuoteQuoteAmpublicratarianistivaI think I had one of those the last time I went to Starbuck's. with sprinkles and extra foam ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #137 October 19, 2009 >I think I had one of those the last time I went to Starbuck's. Last time I was at Starbucks I had a question the barista couldn't answer, so she called the ampublicratarista over. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #138 October 19, 2009 Quote >I think I had one of those the last time I went to Starbuck's. Last time I was at Starbucks I had a question the barista couldn't answer, so she called the ampublicratarista over. Wow. Sounds like an illness OTOH, a bit like Ampuriabrava, too (nice place to be ) dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #139 October 19, 2009 Quote>I think I had one of those the last time I went to Starbuck's. Last time I was at Starbucks I had a question the barista couldn't answer, so she called the ampublicratarista over. yeah, those guys are great - you know they bake their own meal cakes from scratch too ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #140 October 19, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteThere is nothing that makes the private sector inherently more efficient than the public sector (or vice versa). absolutely wrong, the profit motive drives efficiency, government is not accountable to be efficient as they don't spend their own money Reality is not consistent with your comments. Yes you can find government and private models that are both efficient and inefficient but overall I disagree. At the end of the day private models that are inefficient, barring government intervention, will fail. Balance sheets and P&L's can only twisted for so long. Eventually you run out of cash, new creditors can't be secured, stock holders stage a revolt, but in the end if the government stays out of it a failed business model is eventually doomed. Politics just don't operate with that eventual closure. Government programs have constituents, supporters, lobbyists. They can operate for ever, regardless of purpose or results, as long as there are political supporters. Companies eventually anwser to shareholders, creditors, and the reality of business. Government programs anwser to some agency, that anwsers to some congressional committee, who anwsers to the voters that actually bother to get off the couch on election day."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #141 October 19, 2009 QuoteYes you can find government and private models that are both efficient and inefficient … That's exactly my point. There is nothing about the private sector that makes it inherently more efficient than the public sector (or vice versa).Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #142 October 19, 2009 QuoteQuoteYes you can find government and private models that are both efficient and inefficient … That's exactly my point. There is nothing about the private sector that makes it inherently more efficient than the public sector (or vice versa). I don't think that proves your point any more than it disproves your point. In my opinion government programs, and private enterpries, are two very different things with different characteristics. I think most government spending has some common inherent characterstics that lead to inefficency: The feedback mechanism between those spending the money, and those providing the money is much longer and convoluted than the private sector. Government programs suffer from a spend it while you got it mentallity. This is the mentality that if you don't spend what you were budgeted you won't get it next year. If politics and government is so effiecient then where are all the examples of successful government spending programs?"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #143 October 19, 2009 >At the end of the day private models that are inefficient, barring government >intervention, will fail. Agreed. And that's the primary difference. If we can afford for them to fail (for example. Wal-Mart) then that's a good role for a private company to fulfill. If we can't afford for them to fail (nuclear reactor regulation, ATC, the CDC) then that's a better role for governmental involvement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #144 October 19, 2009 QuoteI think most government spending has some common inherent characterstics that lead to inefficency: The feedback mechanism between those spending the money, and those providing the money is much longer and convoluted than the private sector. Government programs suffer from a spend it while you got it mentallity. This is the mentality that if you don't spend what you were budgeted you won't get it next year. If politics and government is so effiecient then where are all the examples of successful government spending programs? Please offer an example of a large private health insurance company that keeps its administrative costs down in the 2-5% range as Medicare does. Private industry suffers from inefficiencies as well. For example, CEO's and BOD's often act in the interest of bonuses and short term stockholder benefits, at the cost of long term benefit of the corporations. Neither the private sector nor the public sector is inherently more efficient than the other. There are examples of efficiency in both sectors. There are examples of inefficiency in both sectors.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #145 October 20, 2009 Quote Please offer an example of a large private health insurance company that keeps its administrative costs down in the 2-5% range as Medicare does. Private industry suffers from inefficiencies as well. For example, CEO's and BOD's often act in the interest of bonuses and short term stockholder benefits, at the cost of long term benefit of the corporations. Neither the private sector nor the public sector is inherently more efficient than the other. There are examples of efficiency in both sectors. There are examples of inefficiency in both sectors. Medicare is going broke right? They also underfund procedures and have costs passed on to other private insurance companies? Maybe I am missing how they are a great example? You are right, executives can take companies for a ride ala Kenith Lay. But in my opinion this is the exception not the norm. When the CEO or the BOD is riding the company off the rails the stockholder can directly step in and vote them out. On the other had the US people can't directly vote out a goverment program head, and even if they can influence this area with politics, it takes a whole election cycle to do so."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #146 October 20, 2009 QuoteMedicare is going broke right? Medicare is insufficiently funded, but it's administration is more efficient that private insurers. (A private insurer, AIG, also found themselves with insufficient assets in the not so distant past.) QuoteMaybe I am missing how they are a great example? Yes, it would appear so. You're confusing adequate funding with efficient administration. QuoteYou are right, executives can take companies for a ride ala Kenith Lay. But in my opinion this is the exception not the norm. It's not terribly rare for companies to worry about short term profits at the expense of long term viability. Perhaps you've heard of Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, AIG, etc.? QuoteWhen the CEO or the BOD is riding the company off the rails the stockholder can directly step in and vote them out. Or they can just wait until taxpayers step in to save the companies. QuoteOn the other had the US people can't directly vote out a goverment program head, and even if they can influence this area with politics, it takes a whole election cycle to do so. People influence politics often without having to wait for an election.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #147 October 21, 2009 QuoteAgreed. I am very surprised at the large number of people who rejoice at America's failures and mourn our successes - based purely on their desire to see America's president fail. It almost sounds like their hatred for the president is much stronger than their love for their country. When the president spent the first several months, going around the world, apologizing for any and everything, that has made America great, just to ingratiate himself, to those of like politcal philosohy, why should we, who love this country, show love for a man, who wants to change it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #148 October 21, 2009 QuoteTo me the president is even more important. He is our elected leader, but I agree with your point. Like I said I don’t get it. We had people clapping when we didn’t get the Olympics, and pissed that he got a reward he did not deserve. I don’t get it, unless all the people mad about this were in the running for the NPP.Either you have no ability to read people's attitudes, by their actions, or you are willfully blind. It didn't take me, but a short while; afterall, we had two years, to watch him, before the election, to realize that Obama was a narcissist, of the highest order. Obama's effort, for Chicago, was not about Chicago. It was about Obama, in his fantasy, leading a parade of the world's greatest athletes. If he were a man, worth his salt, knowing his position, in the world, and realizing the being given The Peace Prize, would seriously limit many of his decisions, he should have rejected it. Due to his ego, he doesn't even realize, that he has been played, and if it were a Chess game, a major piece has been pinned or blocked, and there isn't a thing he can do about, now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #149 October 21, 2009 >why should we, who love this country, show love for a man . . . See, that's the thing. There are a lot of GOPers out there who are 'showing their stripes' so to speak. They profess to "love this country" but rejoice when the US fails - as long as Obama is harmed at the same time. Heck, there are GOPers hoping for armed revolt and another 9/11. They may love their party, but that's not the same as loving your country. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #150 October 21, 2009 QuoteYou are a clone of Amazon! Welcome back! I was going to say, who knew that Amazon had multiple personalities, each one, more vile than the last. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
