Private vs. Public Sectors

[Neo Art]

This thread makes me remember something the foreman working on our railroad station once told a group of students:

"I finally decided that I wanted a job where if I did well I got a raise and if I did poorly I got fired. I had to get out of the public sector."

I'm not saying that there should be no public sector (CLEARLY we need government regulation, and they pay for the best roads and general public works), but I though that quote was illustrative of the dis-incentivization that seems to happen in government.

Right, so we should take some anecdote from some guy that may or may not have existed over the words of people on this very forum who actually work for the government?

[Neutraligon]

not saying mike the progressive is this bad, but he might be

if people make poison medicine, people will die and then the free market will kick in and people won't buy that companies medicine and then they will lose money and then people won't make poison medicine anymore. this is what libertarians literally believe. trust me i am an lf veteran expert.

I did say for the most part. And you're correct, in the free-market perspective, it would be bad business to have medicine that kills the consumer. Why? You want them to keep on purchasing that medicine. To buy other products they may make. You want them to drive safe cars so that they can come back to the dealer to buy another for their kid or to pay to have their oil changed. And it actually makes sense.

Companies are for profits. Profits require consumers. Dead consumers means less profits. Less profits is bad.

But the problem arises with short cuts that companies take and while the market would undoubtedly address that (through a lawsuit, through peer reviews, through bankruptcy, etc.), it just seems so heartless.

That is assuming there is an alternative for consumers and that information will be disseminated as to which drug is causing the problem. It still requires the death or injury of a certain number of users before it can be stopped. I would like prevent people from dying or being injured before hand, rather than fixing the problem after. We have seen what lack of regulation does by having that lack in the late 1800s to early 1900s (before the FDA). I'm not saying regulation as it exists now is perfect, it isn't. Having worked in government for a regulatory agency, I have seen first hand how badly it can and sometimes is handled. That does not mean however that regulation from outside of industry itself is not necessary.

[Neutraligon]

Only if people know why others are dying. If there is enough profit and few enough people know that the medicine is what is causing people to die, than there is no reason to stop selling it.

Oh and what was said above.

Regulation exists because the free market cannot regulate itself, we can see that from the late 1800s and early 1900s. Ever read fast food nation? Those issues occur even with regulation. Hell even with regulation we still have issue with food containing parasites and the such. Regulation is far from stupid, however it does need to be done properly, which at this point in time it is not.

I hadn't realized the government breaking up and banning unions in the late 1800s and early 1900s, providing companies with subsidies and tariffs to protect domestic businesses was "free market."

I was specifically talking about the creation of regulatory agencies for food as a response to the public learning exactly what the situation was like in meat packing plants.

[The Reasonable]

This thread makes me remember something the foreman working on our railroad station once told a group of students:

"I finally decided that I wanted a job where if I did well I got a raise and if I did poorly I got fired. I had to get out of the public sector."

I'm not saying that there should be no public sector (CLEARLY we need government regulation, and they pay for the best roads and general public works), but I though that quote was illustrative of the dis-incentivization that seems to happen in government.

Right, so we should take some anecdote from some guy that may or may not have existed over the words of people on this very forum who actually work for the government?

It's all a delicate balance, what should be public and what should be private. I don't really have a problem with private companies running anything except infrastructure, military, and emergency services, but am I on the right side of history here, supporting a regulated market economy dominated by the private sector?

[Souseiseki]

Right, so we should take some anecdote from some guy that may or may not have existed over the words of people on this very forum who actually work for the government?

It's all a delicate balance, what should be public and what should be private. I don't really have a problem with private companies running anything except infrastructure, military, and emergency services, but am I on the right side of history here, supporting a regulated market economy dominated by the private sector?

well, let's look at the history/current of privatized transport/energy

[Neo Art]

I did say for the most part. And you're correct, in the free-market perspective, it would be bad business to have medicine that kills the consumer. Why? You want them to keep on purchasing that medicine.

And from a free-market perspective it would also be bad business to have a medicine that CURES the consumer, because they'd stop buying it. So let's mix in some opioid, so that while their disease may be cured, they're cripplingly addicted to it by the time the drug runs its course. That's good for business, right?

To buy other products they may make. You want them to drive safe cars so that they can come back to the dealer to buy another for their kid or to pay to have their oil changed.

Unless of course we make the cars shitty enough that they have to come back in a few years to buy ANOTHER one. After all, if the car is well built, they will only replace it every few decades. That's not good for profits.

Now sure, the shitty build may cause people to die, but hey, if the cost of settling the lawsuits is less than the profit we gain from the additional sales, then we'll just do that. We'll still make more money in the end, and what's the harm in that?

Well, other than, you know, all those dead people.

The problem is, as I said before, while the free market will always gravitate towards the most profit optimizing position, sometimes the most profit optimal position is "lots of dead people". It's a fact that libertarians either like to cover their ears and pretend doesn't exist, or are prefectly fine with.

The first you can almost forgive, it's hard to believe. You don't WANT to believe it. You don't want to accept your ideology means more people will die in preventable accidents just for the sake of money. It makes you kind of a terrible person.

The other side knows they're terrible people. They just don't care.

[Glossotria]

This thread makes me remember something the foreman working on our railroad station once told a group of students:

"I finally decided that I wanted a job where if I did well I got a raise and if I did poorly I got fired. I had to get out of the public sector."

I'm not saying that there should be no public sector (CLEARLY we need government regulation, and they pay for the best roads and general public works), but I though that quote was illustrative of the dis-incentivization that seems to happen in government.

Right, so we should take some anecdote from some guy that may or may not have existed over the words of people on this very forum who actually work for the government?

Not over, along with. He existed and had a bad experience working in the government, and said something which was funny and stuck in my mind. Glad to see that others have good experiences with working in the government. I think there needs to be a balance.

[Ostroeuropa]

Transport
Energy
Baseline Housing
Water
New-Infrastructure (Internet and connection and such.)
Healthcare
Education
Military
Police
Courts
Prisons

^- Should be state run. Anything else should be private.

[Death Metal]

Now sure, the shitty build may cause people to die, but hey, if the cost of settling the lawsuits is less than the profit we gain from the additional sales, then we'll just do that. We'll still make more money in the end, and what's the harm in that?

Well, other than, you know, all those dead people.

...GLaDOS, what are you doing on NSG? Don't you have neurotoxins to emit?

[Neutraligon]

Right, so we should take some anecdote from some guy that may or may not have existed over the words of people on this very forum who actually work for the government?

It's all a delicate balance, what should be public and what should be private. I don't really have a problem with private companies running anything except infrastructure, military, and emergency services, but am I on the right side of history here, supporting a regulated market economy dominated by the private sector?

Both the public sector and the private sector have their advantages in different areas. the public sector may not be as innovative or as cost effective as the private sector but it can provide services to more people for the very reason that it's prime motivation is not profit. Thus certain services, education, infrastructure, emergency services, etc. should be provided for by the public sector. That does not mean the private sector cannot be involved or provide these services, just that the public sector needs to provide them so that everyone has access. The public sector however does not have an interest in providing luxury goods. These should be provided for by the private sector. The private sector might be able to be part of services that the public sector also takes part in, but they are there as an improvement of the public sector services, not as the only provider (private education).

Hence my belief that the government should provide healthcare, but should not prevent the private sector from offering services in addition to those provided by the government.

[Neo Art]

Now sure, the shitty build may cause people to die, but hey, if the cost of settling the lawsuits is less than the profit we gain from the additional sales, then we'll just do that. We'll still make more money in the end, and what's the harm in that?

Well, other than, you know, all those dead people.

...GLaDOS, what are you doing on NSG? Don't you have neurotoxins to emit?

I've experiments to run.
There is research to be done.
On the people who are still alive.

[Forsher]

we're still trying to get our trains back. it's probably illegal under EU law. the government and tits keep trying to pretend that the problem is that it just wasn't privatized hard enough and maybe it should be privatized more and needs just a bit more competition. (note: competition with trains ahahaha). it's quite a pain in the arse.

it's also annoying that we have to fucking buy it back because they can't run it properly after some idiots sold it with the false promise it'd be be run better. if i was leader i'd just say they've failed to meet contract obligations and take it all back and tell them they're lucky for any pittance i give them, but maybe i'm a bit loopy.

at least they're not killing people with "competition will reduce energy prices" *all the energy companies increase their prices at the same time*. or like infection rates rose significantly after NHS cleaning was outsourced to the point we've now banned it in scotland.

sorry this is basically a rant my eyes just fill blood and a large british flag starts waving in my head and is slowly replaced by a scottish/red one as i start banging the keyboard as soon as i see someone mention trains

Yeah. IIRC, most of the major newspapers (which suggests that the large majority of the reader base is in support too) supported some scale of trains renationalisation after the blunder where we lost a few hundred million, but still no major party is in favour of it

I'm sure the politicians would change their minds in a flash if it looked like being pro-train actually meant something to people.

To be honest, trains are an iffy spot. Auckland isn't exactly known for its love of public transport but the mayor likes his rail loop and the government is pretty keen on motorways.