Privatizing state resources to save money?

[BigBallinStalin]

Can you explain your last paragraph more?

I don't understand why an organization would want to lose control (thus commanding a smaller budget) over their assets. If they need to justify taxation/deficit spending, then having stuff to actually finance helps.

Oh please... she doesn't even know what her last paragraph means.

You are a true piece of work.

Or, more likely too heavily vested in the system to even bother to question it.

You think all this family values and cut taxes came out of no where? Ask yourself what would really happen if the so-called "conservative agenda" is really fulfilled.

You yourself have stated many times that most proclaiming conservativism are not really conservative. That part is correct, sort of.. if you think conservative means specific values. If you think conservative has the more traditional meaning of maintaining the status quo, then that is exactly what they are doing. Or rather, not so much "maintaining" as shoring up the power of those already at the top, already in power, with money. THAT is the ultimate goal of those behind the Republicans and, to a very slighltly lesser extent, the Democrats... and basically every other political movement out there that is actually achieving anything today.

The only real counter is the green party and its a joke.

So, where's that explanation on that last paragraph of yours?

[BigBallinStalin]

Is this because private contractors has been so cost effective
in the Iraq War. absolute sarcasm

It seems like just one more way to corrupt a democratic system
as private corporations scramble to influence elected officials
and gain large contracts. There's no reason why a truly effective
government can't hire responsible & qualified people to manage
these public assets in a practical way.

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here, but why does this bother you (and Player) but not government spending generally?

There is no such thing as "government spending generally"

You seem to be buying into the rhetoric that the government is some kind of remote entity. The government is us.. and like us, it is made up of many people with many, many, many different goals.

You're thinking of the "State." The government is a particular organization distinct from civil society. Economic life, civil society/social institutions, and government are considered by many to be the main parts of a "State." Others call it "society," but both of those words have different meanings for different thinkers and are generally silly.

They're sometimes used to gloss over the important details, e.g. "There is no tension between the government and the people. Within the State, we the people maintain control and are supreme and/or counterbalance."

[thegreekdog]

Can you explain your last paragraph more?

I don't understand why an organization would want to lose control (thus commanding a smaller budget) over their assets. If they need to justify taxation/deficit spending, then having stuff to actually finance helps.

Oh please... she doesn't even know what her last paragraph means.

You are a true piece of work.

Or, more likely too heavily vested in the system to even bother to question it.

You think all this family values and cut taxes came out of no where? Ask yourself what would really happen if the so-called "conservative agenda" is really fulfilled.

You yourself have stated many times that most proclaiming conservativism are not really conservative. That part is correct, sort of.. if you think conservative means specific values. If you think conservative has the more traditional meaning of maintaining the status quo, then that is exactly what they are doing. Or rather, not so much "maintaining" as shoring up the power of those already at the top, already in power, with money. THAT is the ultimate goal of those behind the Republicans and, to a very slighltly lesser extent, the Democrats... and basically every other political movement out there that is actually achieving anything today.

The only real counter is the green party and its a joke.

Are you for real?

Red - You accuse me of being a shill of the "system."
Blue - You note where the family values and tax cuts come from.
Green - Note the alternative and dismiss it.

But, wait, there's more!

You seem to be buying into the rhetoric that the government is some kind of remote entity. The government is us.. and like us, it is made up of many people with many, many, many different goals.

Whazzat? How can you do red and blue and then talk about how the government is not really bad and it's a bunch of competing people and it's all about us? Do you understand how inconsistent you are? And I'm the shill? I'm the status quo guy? Please Player, grow up.

As I said before in another thread, you defend the way our government works when the government does what you want it to do; on the other hand, when the government doesn't do what you want it to do, you denigrate the way our government works. You've done it here in the same thread... in two posts... both in response to two of my posts. You literally took hypocritical positions in two consecutive posts. How do you not see this? Either accept the use of soft money, lobbying, and the like and don't use it as an argument against laws you don't like or don't accept the use of soft money, lobbying, and the like and use it in arguments against all laws, including the ones you like.

[BigBallinStalin]

Unfortunately the system is current set so that it's an enormous pain to hire public employees, and it's even worse at firing them.
So they turn to contractors who essentially exist in a shadow world free from any scrutiny, public or private.

A main problem is the disconnection between the varied experts within the system. If the system was working properly, contracts would look like actual contracts. "Build X with in X days; we estimate this can be budgeted within X dollars." Failure to work within these limits would hold the contractor liable, just like in the real world.

Instead, the government just looks at the bottom line without putting in the needed preparation. An expert company has been in business for 50 years, they've done thousands of projects like this globally, and they say it will take seven million dollars, on the other hand, this new upstart company says they can do it for five million!
Ten years later the underbidders have run out of money for the fourth time and the government's solution is to throw more money and more idiots at it.

I know that in the US military, this isn't the case. The 'good ol boys,' i.e those companies which have been in the game for a long time, get the contracts, and "run out of money for the fourth time and the government's solution is to throw more money and more idiots at it."

It's not a competitive process. Underlying those exchanges is 'political clout', not superior quality or performance. It's an "old boy network."

[Lootifer]

HEY US TOO!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mighty_River_Power#Future

Yeah, but only 10% of the shares/ownership is allowed to go to foreigners.

You want to buy our shit?

I dont see why you would view that limitation as a bad thing; sure its pretty nationalist but the practical impact of it should be fairly meaningless (unless theres a difference between local and foriegn investers?).

[BigBallinStalin]

HEY US TOO!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mighty_River_Power#Future

Yeah, but only 10% of the shares/ownership is allowed to go to foreigners.

You want to buy our shit?

I dont see why you would view that limitation as a bad thing; sure its pretty nationalist but the practical impact of it should be fairly meaningless (unless theres a difference between local and foriegn investers?).

I view it with interest--but neither with scorn nor approval. I am neutral, impassive, and observant--like a stoner.

IIRC, they're only selling 49% of the shares, so it's not really "privatization" (which is a word thrown around a lot with random abandon).

I kind of like the 39% to 'locals' policy because it may limit that principal-agent problem, in that if the owners are local, and if the producer creates local problems, then the owners would have a greater chance of stemming that kind of bad behavior. If your dog crapped on someone's yard 1000 miles away, and you weren't even there, then how much would you care?

(I wonder if the locals can buy those shares them sell them to non-locals after some given time... Hey, Loot. I may have a favor to ask... )

[Lootifer]

I think its only the initial offering that is limited to residents. Pretty sure once the 49% is all sold and the company is listed on the NZX then as long as you can trade on the NZX you can buy shares.

But it is a utility; I imagine trading volume will be pretty small so it may take a while to accumlate a decent shareholding.

[PLAYER57832]

Can you explain your last paragraph more?

I don't understand why an organization would want to lose control (thus commanding a smaller budget) over their assets. If they need to justify taxation/deficit spending, then having stuff to actually finance helps.

Oh please... she doesn't even know what her last paragraph means.

You are a true piece of work.

Or, more likely too heavily vested in the system to even bother to question it.

You think all this family values and cut taxes came out of no where? Ask yourself what would really happen if the so-called "conservative agenda" is really fulfilled.

You yourself have stated many times that most proclaiming conservativism are not really conservative. That part is correct, sort of.. if you think conservative means specific values. If you think conservative has the more traditional meaning of maintaining the status quo, then that is exactly what they are doing. Or rather, not so much "maintaining" as shoring up the power of those already at the top, already in power, with money. THAT is the ultimate goal of those behind the Republicans and, to a very slighltly lesser extent, the Democrats... and basically every other political movement out there that is actually achieving anything today.

The only real counter is the green party and its a joke.

So, where's that explanation on that last paragraph of yours?

The agendas being put forward today by those claiming to be "conservative", pretend to be a lot of things, but are really just about boosting further the powerful, the biggest business and those who already have a lot of cash. Some do it out of a kind of "eyes open" idea that they will benefit ; some, most notably many of the Tea Partiers, have deluded themselves into thinking they are pursuing some other ideal. It doesn't really matter. By failing to really look forward they are just allowing themselves to be manipulated.

When I was younger, I can remember arguments by the John Birch Society and then the Liberaterians. I had a teenage penchant for debating politics. That their arguments sounded fairly similar did not bother me at all. In retrospect, it does.


Or, to put it even more simply.. it doesn't matter if you want to cut taxes so much that government cannot do its jobs or just want to cut government itself so they cannot operate as it should, the result is that others wind up taking over, excercising the control and power that, in a democratic type government (democratic hybrids, of course, since there is no real 100% democracy) rightfully belongs with the elected representatives of the people.

Cutting back government leaves plenty of room for big business to do as it will, to ride over anyone in its way. For all greekdog, et al talk about wanting freedom, you are all more than happy to just hand it over so someone else can make a profit.

You BBS have the illusion that business left alone will somehow control itself and result in something that will somehow be beneficial for society. That is just false, not based on facts at all.. no matter how much you pretend it is. The fact is that the market is great at putting sugar coatings on pills once pills are invented, sometimes at discovering the idea of a pill... but not at finding the basic powders that need to go into the pill and not at discovering the harm that will come from the additives to the coating, unless the harm is very quick.

You asked me earlier what brought the 1950's. The answer is really a strong government. A strong government people believed in led to the 1960's, the moon, more college educated adults than ever before, civil rights, women's rights, and many other benefits we now just take for granted.

[BigBallinStalin]

A cynic could see a pattern here... get people to oppose higher taxes, let the structures fail until people are desperate enough to agree to privatization, of in quick deals... and then sit back and laugh while you collect the money.

The agendas being put forward today by those claiming to be "conservative", pretend to be a lot of things, but are really just about boosting further the powerful, the biggest business and those who already have a lot of cash. Some do it out of a kind of "eyes open" idea that they will benefit ; some, most notably many of the Tea Partiers, have deluded themselves into thinking they are pursuing some other ideal. It doesn't really matter. By failing to really look forward they are just allowing themselves to be manipulated.

Summary:
So, 'conservatives' are self-seeking agenda-pushers who bolster the powerful, biggest business.
The Tea Party is deluded.

When I was younger, I can remember arguments by the John Birch Society and then the Liberaterians. I had a teenage penchant for debating politics. That their arguments sounded fairly similar did not bother me at all. In retrospect, it does.

Summary:
The John Birch Society and the Libertarians make fairly similar arguments.

Or, to put it even more simply.. it doesn't matter if you want to cut taxes so much that government cannot do its jobs or just want to cut government itself so they cannot operate as it should, the result is that others wind up taking over, excercising the control and power that, in a democratic type government (democratic hybrids, of course, since there is no real 100% democracy) rightfully belongs with the elected representatives of the people.

Cutting back government leaves plenty of room for big business to do as it will, to ride over anyone in its way. For all greekdog, et al talk about wanting freedom, you are all more than happy to just hand it over so someone else can make a profit.

Summary:
By limiting government spending (federal government, I presume) and its power, then "others take over" somehow without having access to the 'legitimate' monopoly of force, i.e. the use of violence. Well, that makes no sense because without state-mandated monopoly and privileges, then the Old Guard of business face extremely deadly competition for themselves. Pretty hard to 'force' people to buy your product when the gates to more markets have been fully opened to competitors.

You BBS have the illusion that business left alone will somehow control itself and result in something that will somehow be beneficial for society. That is just false, not based on facts at all.. no matter how much you pretend it is. The fact is that the market is great at putting sugar coatings on pills once pills are invented, sometimes at discovering the idea of a pill... but not at finding the basic powders that need to go into the pill and not at discovering the harm that will come from the additives to the coating, unless the harm is very quick.

Summary:
1. Markets are not self-enforcing, nor can they--if left alone--will be beneficial for society. (What about competitive certification agencies, FOCJs? What is the optimal scope and amount of government? I digress).
2. Markets can't find basic powders for making a pill. (um wut. The government dumps money into that market to discover these innovations..., and others can do this without government funding, but I digress).
3. Pill Producers are oblivious to the lawsuits concerning their coating of pills--unless the harm is quick. (Well, that's a statute of limitations issue, which is problem with the government. It's also a certification problem, which is monopolized by the federal government (FDA). Apparently, you have a problem with government-provided courts and the FDA, yet characterize that as the 'doings' of the market. Given this misunderstanding, it doesn't seem clear that you can really offer a strong criticism against markets).

You asked me earlier what brought the 1950's. The answer is really a strong government. A strong government people believed in led to the 1960's, the moon, more college educated adults than ever before, civil rights, women's rights, and many other benefits we now just take for granted.

Summary:
Big Government creates the 1960s, the trip to the moon, more college education, civil rights, and women's rights.

You do know that some of these were strongly resisted by those within the government--and through the means of government, right?
Anyway, correlation != causation. Civil society != Big Government. The relevant ideas, institutions, and market-backed processes of production of space ships, music, education, marketing of such ideas, etc. are not solely within the realm of Big Government. All of this is implicit within your claim, but obviously it's incorrect. Finally, it's not wise to leave out the costs of a 'benefit-only' analysis. That would lead to a jaded view...

A cynic could see a pattern here... get people to oppose higher taxes, let the structures fail until people are desperate enough to agree to privatization, of in quick deals... and then sit back and laugh while you collect the money.

What's that mean?
Agenda-setting 'conservatives' and presumably 'libertarians' and John Birchers get people to oppose higher taxes, let unknown structures fail (government programs, I guess)--somehow they have this power to make them fail, and not at all is it due to bureaucratic incompetence, and then people seek privatization (but not 'more government spending' or 'higher taxes'), and then THEY sit back and laugh while THEY collect the money--whoever THEY are. 'Conservatives' I guess, whoever they are too.

1. Obviously, the unmentioned, who are pro-big government, attain the same outcomes (helping big business). Others who can't be crammed into black-and-white views (conservative, liberal, etc.) also appeal to the government to attain similar outcomes which you dislike (via rent-seeking). So, steps toward bigger government attain the outcomes which you dislike, but it's interesting that you omit this. I already mentioned many other problems in the parentheses, so good luck

2. Ideally, I'm for free markets, less/zero government, I'm morally libertarian with a helping of consequentialism, which in turn makes me, Practically, a person who wants more people to become more cognizant of the actual political process and the market process, and basically smaller, centralized government. This entails battering down one's ideology, which apparently blinds people like you and JB (note the Unmentioned portion of your argument).

[Night Strike]

Or, to put it even more simply.. it doesn't matter if you want to cut taxes so much that government cannot do its jobs or just want to cut government itself so they cannot operate as it should, the result is that others wind up taking over, excercising the control and power that, in a democratic type government (democratic hybrids, of course, since there is no real 100% democracy) rightfully belongs with the elected representatives of the people.

Except that what happens in your world view, and that has already happened in this nation, is that the government grows so big that it can no longer operate as it should. A government that is too small and a government that is too big are both bad things. The issue here is that we're already at the too big part and you progressives want to grow it even more, while the Tea Partiers, conservatives, and libertarians want to keep the size the same or try to pull it back a little bit.

[oVo]

[...] why does this bother you (and Player) but not government spending generally?

It all bothers me... and particularly the "financing" of elected officials.
It has been corrupted for ages with no end in sight.

[PLAYER57832]

A cynic could see a pattern here... get people to oppose higher taxes, let the structures fail until people are desperate enough to agree to privatization, of in quick deals... and then sit back and laugh while you collect the money.

The agendas being put forward today by those claiming to be "conservative", pretend to be a lot of things, but are really just about boosting further the powerful, the biggest business and those who already have a lot of cash. Some do it out of a kind of "eyes open" idea that they will benefit ; some, most notably many of the Tea Partiers, have deluded themselves into thinking they are pursuing some other ideal. It doesn't really matter. By failing to really look forward they are just allowing themselves to be manipulated.

Summary:
So, 'conservatives' are self-seeking agenda-pushers who bolster the powerful, biggest business.
The Tea Party is deluded.

When I was younger, I can remember arguments by the John Birch Society and then the Liberaterians. I had a teenage penchant for debating politics. That their arguments sounded fairly similar did not bother me at all. In retrospect, it does.

Summary:
The John Birch Society and the Libertarians make fairly similar arguments.

Or, to put it even more simply.. it doesn't matter if you want to cut taxes so much that government cannot do its jobs or just want to cut government itself so they cannot operate as it should, the result is that others wind up taking over, excercising the control and power that, in a democratic type government (democratic hybrids, of course, since there is no real 100% democracy) rightfully belongs with the elected representatives of the people.

Cutting back government leaves plenty of room for big business to do as it will, to ride over anyone in its way. For all greekdog, et al talk about wanting freedom, you are all more than happy to just hand it over so someone else can make a profit.

Summary:
By limiting government spending (federal government, I presume) and its power, then "others take over" somehow without having access to the 'legitimate' monopoly of force, i.e. the use of violence. Well, that makes no sense because without state-mandated monopoly and privileges, then the Old Guard of business face extremely deadly competition for themselves. Pretty hard to 'force' people to buy your product when the gates to more markets have been fully opened to competitors.

You BBS have the illusion that business left alone will somehow control itself and result in something that will somehow be beneficial for society. That is just false, not based on facts at all.. no matter how much you pretend it is. The fact is that the market is great at putting sugar coatings on pills once pills are invented, sometimes at discovering the idea of a pill... but not at finding the basic powders that need to go into the pill and not at discovering the harm that will come from the additives to the coating, unless the harm is very quick.

Summary:
1. Markets are not self-enforcing, nor can they--if left alone--will be beneficial for society. (What about competitive certification agencies, FOCJs? What is the optimal scope and amount of government? I digress).
2. Markets can't find basic powders for making a pill. (um wut. The government dumps money into that market to discover these innovations..., and others can do this without government funding, but I digress).
3. Pill Producers are oblivious to the lawsuits concerning their coating of pills--unless the harm is quick. (Well, that's a statute of limitations issue, which is problem with the government. It's also a certification problem, which is monopolized by the federal government (FDA). Apparently, you have a problem with government-provided courts and the FDA, yet characterize that as the 'doings' of the market. Given this misunderstanding, it doesn't seem clear that you can really offer a strong criticism against markets).

You asked me earlier what brought the 1950's. The answer is really a strong government. A strong government people believed in led to the 1960's, the moon, more college educated adults than ever before, civil rights, women's rights, and many other benefits we now just take for granted.

Summary:
Big Government creates the 1960s, the trip to the moon, more college education, civil rights, and women's rights.

You do know that some of these were strongly resisted by those within the government--and through the means of government, right?
Anyway, correlation != causation. Civil society != Big Government. The relevant ideas, institutions, and market-backed processes of production of space ships, music, education, marketing of such ideas, etc. are not solely within the realm of Big Government. All of this is implicit within your claim, but obviously it's incorrect. Finally, it's not wise to leave out the costs of a 'benefit-only' analysis. That would lead to a jaded view...

A cynic could see a pattern here... get people to oppose higher taxes, let the structures fail until people are desperate enough to agree to privatization, of in quick deals... and then sit back and laugh while you collect the money.

What's that mean?
Agenda-setting 'conservatives' and presumably 'libertarians' and John Birchers get people to oppose higher taxes, let unknown structures fail (government programs, I guess)--somehow they have this power to make them fail, and not at all is it due to bureaucratic incompetence, and then people seek privatization (but not 'more government spending' or 'higher taxes'), and then THEY sit back and laugh while THEY collect the money--whoever THEY are. 'Conservatives' I guess, whoever they are too.

1. Obviously, the unmentioned, who are pro-big government, attain the same outcomes (helping big business). Others who can't be crammed into black-and-white views (conservative, liberal, etc.) also appeal to the government to attain similar outcomes which you dislike (via rent-seeking). So, steps toward bigger government attain the outcomes which you dislike, but it's interesting that you omit this. I already mentioned many other problems in the parentheses, so good luck

2. Ideally, I'm for free markets, less/zero government, I'm morally libertarian with a helping of consequentialism, which in turn makes me, Practically, a person who wants more people to become more cognizant of the actual political process and the market process, and basically smaller, centralized government. This entails battering down one's ideology, which apparently blinds people like you and JB (note the Unmentioned portion of your argument).

Nice try, but no. Funny how you managed to nicely sumarize my original point, the one you claimed you "could not unders

When you go from arguing any real point to simply belittling... its pretty clear you are on the losing side. Too bad you are not gentleman enough to admit it.

[PLAYER57832]

[...] why does this bother you (and Player) but not government spending generally?

It all bothers me... and particularly the "financing" of elected officials.
It has been corrupted for ages with no end in sight.

I agree, but talking about all of it is too much and leads no where. So, I focus on a few specific issues within the greater problem.

Also, if you have just been told the foundation of your house needs shoring up, and then you look to see your pan is on fire on the stove.. which are you going to tend to first?

Fracking in the Allegheny is a grease fire. Fixing our education system and campaign financie reform are shoring up our foundations.

[BigBallinStalin]

A cynic could see a pattern here... get people to oppose higher taxes, let the structures fail until people are desperate enough to agree to privatization, of in quick deals... and then sit back and laugh while you collect the money.

The agendas being put forward today by those claiming to be "conservative", pretend to be a lot of things, but are really just about boosting further the powerful, the biggest business and those who already have a lot of cash. Some do it out of a kind of "eyes open" idea that they will benefit ; some, most notably many of the Tea Partiers, have deluded themselves into thinking they are pursuing some other ideal. It doesn't really matter. By failing to really look forward they are just allowing themselves to be manipulated.

Summary:
So, 'conservatives' are self-seeking agenda-pushers who bolster the powerful, biggest business.
The Tea Party is deluded.

When I was younger, I can remember arguments by the John Birch Society and then the Liberaterians. I had a teenage penchant for debating politics. That their arguments sounded fairly similar did not bother me at all. In retrospect, it does.

Summary:
The John Birch Society and the Libertarians make fairly similar arguments.

Or, to put it even more simply.. it doesn't matter if you want to cut taxes so much that government cannot do its jobs or just want to cut government itself so they cannot operate as it should, the result is that others wind up taking over, excercising the control and power that, in a democratic type government (democratic hybrids, of course, since there is no real 100% democracy) rightfully belongs with the elected representatives of the people.

Cutting back government leaves plenty of room for big business to do as it will, to ride over anyone in its way. For all greekdog, et al talk about wanting freedom, you are all more than happy to just hand it over so someone else can make a profit.

Summary:
By limiting government spending (federal government, I presume) and its power, then "others take over" somehow without having access to the 'legitimate' monopoly of force, i.e. the use of violence. Well, that makes no sense because without state-mandated monopoly and privileges, then the Old Guard of business face extremely deadly competition for themselves. Pretty hard to 'force' people to buy your product when the gates to more markets have been fully opened to competitors.

You BBS have the illusion that business left alone will somehow control itself and result in something that will somehow be beneficial for society. That is just false, not based on facts at all.. no matter how much you pretend it is. The fact is that the market is great at putting sugar coatings on pills once pills are invented, sometimes at discovering the idea of a pill... but not at finding the basic powders that need to go into the pill and not at discovering the harm that will come from the additives to the coating, unless the harm is very quick.

Summary:
1. Markets are not self-enforcing, nor can they--if left alone--will be beneficial for society. (What about competitive certification agencies, FOCJs? What is the optimal scope and amount of government? I digress).
2. Markets can't find basic powders for making a pill. (um wut. The government dumps money into that market to discover these innovations..., and others can do this without government funding, but I digress).
3. Pill Producers are oblivious to the lawsuits concerning their coating of pills--unless the harm is quick. (Well, that's a statute of limitations issue, which is problem with the government. It's also a certification problem, which is monopolized by the federal government (FDA). Apparently, you have a problem with government-provided courts and the FDA, yet characterize that as the 'doings' of the market. Given this misunderstanding, it doesn't seem clear that you can really offer a strong criticism against markets).

You asked me earlier what brought the 1950's. The answer is really a strong government. A strong government people believed in led to the 1960's, the moon, more college educated adults than ever before, civil rights, women's rights, and many other benefits we now just take for granted.

Summary:
Big Government creates the 1960s, the trip to the moon, more college education, civil rights, and women's rights.

You do know that some of these were strongly resisted by those within the government--and through the means of government, right?
Anyway, correlation != causation. Civil society != Big Government. The relevant ideas, institutions, and market-backed processes of production of space ships, music, education, marketing of such ideas, etc. are not solely within the realm of Big Government. All of this is implicit within your claim, but obviously it's incorrect. Finally, it's not wise to leave out the costs of a 'benefit-only' analysis. That would lead to a jaded view...

A cynic could see a pattern here... get people to oppose higher taxes, let the structures fail until people are desperate enough to agree to privatization, of in quick deals... and then sit back and laugh while you collect the money.

What's that mean?
Agenda-setting 'conservatives' and presumably 'libertarians' and John Birchers get people to oppose higher taxes, let unknown structures fail (government programs, I guess)--somehow they have this power to make them fail, and not at all is it due to bureaucratic incompetence, and then people seek privatization (but not 'more government spending' or 'higher taxes'), and then THEY sit back and laugh while THEY collect the money--whoever THEY are. 'Conservatives' I guess, whoever they are too.

1. Obviously, the unmentioned, who are pro-big government, attain the same outcomes (helping big business). Others who can't be crammed into black-and-white views (conservative, liberal, etc.) also appeal to the government to attain similar outcomes which you dislike (via rent-seeking). So, steps toward bigger government attain the outcomes which you dislike, but it's interesting that you omit this. I already mentioned many other problems in the parentheses, so good luck

2. Ideally, I'm for free markets, less/zero government, I'm morally libertarian with a helping of consequentialism, which in turn makes me, Practically, a person who wants more people to become more cognizant of the actual political process and the market process, and basically smaller, centralized government. This entails battering down one's ideology, which apparently blinds people like you and JB (note the Unmentioned portion of your argument).

Nice try, but no. Funny how you managed to nicely sumarize my original point, the one you claimed you "could not unders

When you go from arguing any real point to simply belittling... its pretty clear you are on the losing side. Too bad you are not gentleman enough to admit it.

If all you can do is essentially counter with: "NO UR WRONG," "I"M EMOTIONALLY ATTACHED TO MY IDEOLOGY," and [insert straw man fallacy], then I can confidently walk away knowing that I'm right and that you once again hold nonsensical views about the world.

[PLAYER57832]

If all you can do is essentially counter with: "NO UR WRONG," "I"M EMOTIONALLY ATTACHED TO MY IDEOLOGY," and [insert straw man fallacy], then I can confidently walk away knowing that I'm right and that you once again hold nonsensical views about the world.

Nice try, but disagreeing with you doesn't equate to "straw man fallacy". Sorry, but that IS a straw man.

I provided you with enough real data. Every time I do, you ignore it and lapse into a personal attack.

[PLAYER57832]

It's not a competitive process. Underlying those exchanges is 'political clout', not superior quality or performance. It's an "old boy network."

This is the prime error in your thinking.. or rather, pretended thinking because you basically stop at that point.

That "lack of competition" is the inherent, ultimate result of a true free market, left on its own. The bigger guy gets more power, gains more advantage and, eventually has so much power and advantage that no one can compete.

It doesn't matter if its Rockafeller given away Kerosene; Walmart continually forcing suppliers to cut prices, cut prices without regard to how they do it or whehter it is actually reasonable that they do so or not; Or construction companies deciding that its cheaper to pretend workers are contracted, or grain elevator operators deciding that they just don't have time to hook 16 year olds up to safety belts in grain elevators. The one willing to cut the most corners, gets the money and gets the contracts UNLESS there are outside forces, rules that are actually enforced. More power means they get to write the rules to favor their methods... just like in Texas. They win, society as a whole loses. The game today, as before the Depression is to pretend that what benefits the the businesses with the money is beneficial to society. It can be superficially true for a while, just as Walmart truly did initially offer lower prices but also decent enough wages and conditions, but now is the epitomy of abuse.

The only counter to that is rules generated from the masses, rules that oppose big business interests sometimes, sometimes cooincide, but that don't put this idea that "anything for business is OK" as the forefront ideology like you wish to pretend.

Sometimes rules beneficial to society come through "voluntary agreements", but that only happens when there is a basis of law, basis of fundamental protective rules AND a reasonable threat of even more restrictive rules by the government.

Sure, you can put up statistics that "prove" your ideas are correct, but what you cannot do is provide the fundamental understanding of where that data really came from or the real world impact of these ideas and figures you tout. Economists that do are the ones admitting that their predictions have only 10% accuracy after 2 years, not the ones claiming that all we have to do is lower taxes and reduce the binds on business to get stuff to happen.

[BigBallinStalin]

If all you can do is essentially counter with: "NO UR WRONG," "I"M EMOTIONALLY ATTACHED TO MY IDEOLOGY," and [insert straw man fallacy], then I can confidently walk away knowing that I'm right and that you once again hold nonsensical views about the world.

Nice try, but disagreeing with you doesn't equate to "straw man fallacy". Sorry, but that IS a straw man.

I provided you with enough real data. Every time I do, you ignore it and lapse into a personal attack.

So, you provide an argument (lol, "real data"), it gets refuted, and then you provide no substantial counter-argument. Obviously, you don't really have much of a defense. My favorite gaping hole in your stance was the Unmentioned groups which attain the same outcomes which you (allegedly) despise, but again that's something you have to deal with. Hopefully, you have an ideological problem which prevents you from thinking clearly and consistently.

To sum up our exchange here: I can explain why you're making a stupid argument, but you can't do the same for me nor can you restore the standing of your argument. Eventually, ITT you'll get off your podium and start selling crazy in other threads.

[BigBallinStalin]

It's not a competitive process. Underlying those exchanges is 'political clout', not superior quality or performance. It's an "old boy network."

This is the prime error in your thinking.. or rather, pretended thinking because you basically stop at that point.

That "lack of competition" is the inherent, ultimate result of a true free market, left on its own. The bigger guy gets more power, gains more advantage and, eventually has so much power and advantage that no one can compete.

It doesn't matter if its Rockafeller given away Kerosene; Walmart continually forcing suppliers to cut prices, cut prices without regard to how they do it or whehter it is actually reasonable that they do so or not; Or construction companies deciding that its cheaper to pretend workers are contracted, or grain elevator operators deciding that they just don't have time to hook 16 year olds up to safety belts in grain elevators. The one willing to cut the most corners, gets the money and gets the contracts UNLESS there are outside forces, rules that are actually enforced. More power means they get to write the rules to favor their methods... just like in Texas. They win, society as a whole loses. The game today, as before the Depression is to pretend that what benefits the the businesses with the money is beneficial to society. It can be superficially true for a while, just as Walmart truly did initially offer lower prices but also decent enough wages and conditions, but now is the epitomy of abuse.

The only counter to that is rules generated from the masses, rules that oppose big business interests sometimes, sometimes cooincide, but that don't put this idea that "anything for business is OK" as the forefront ideology like you wish to pretend.

Sometimes rules beneficial to society come through "voluntary agreements", but that only happens when there is a basis of law, basis of fundamental protective rules AND a reasonable threat of even more restrictive rules by the government.

Sure, you can put up statistics that "prove" your ideas are correct, but what you cannot do is provide the fundamental understanding of where that data really came from or the real world impact of these ideas and figures you tout. Economists that do are the ones admitting that their predictions have only 10% accuracy after 2 years, not the ones claiming that all we have to do is lower taxes and reduce the binds on business to get stuff to happen.

You don't know what you're talking about--judging from your rants in other places which have already been addressed, so I feel no obligation in dealing with your ideological nonsense. You're also taking the above out of context, which is stupid.

[patches70]

Ha ha BBS, you can't understand because you are blinded by facts!

[thegreekdog]

Ironically, Player is the first one to point out when someone doesn't know what he or she is talking about (e.g. science) and takes great pains to make that person feel unknowledgeable. On the other hand, in threads like these, she clearly has no idea what she's talking about, but gets offended when anyone suggests that. In sum, like always, Player is hypocritical.

[PLAYER57832]

If all you can do is essentially counter with: "NO UR WRONG," "I"M EMOTIONALLY ATTACHED TO MY IDEOLOGY," and [insert straw man fallacy], then I can confidently walk away knowing that I'm right and that you once again hold nonsensical views about the world.

Nice try, but disagreeing with you doesn't equate to "straw man fallacy". Sorry, but that IS a straw man.

I provided you with enough real data. Every time I do, you ignore it and lapse into a personal attack.

So, you provide an argument (lol, "real data"), it gets refuted, and then you provide no substantial counter-argument. Obviously, you don't really have much of a defense. My favorite gaping hole in your stance was the Unmentioned groups which attain the same outcomes which you (allegedly) despise, but again that's something you have to deal with. Hopefully, you have an ideological problem which prevents you from thinking clearly and consistently.

To sum up our exchange here: I can explain why you're making a stupid argument, but you can't do the same for me nor can you restore the standing of your argument. Eventually, ITT you'll get off your podium and start selling crazy in other threads.

A true free market ALWAYS leads to a monopoly. You want to pretend it leads to some utopia, but cannot point to even one single example where it has truly worked. Constraint is always required.

[BigBallinStalin]

If all you can do is essentially counter with: "NO UR WRONG," "I"M EMOTIONALLY ATTACHED TO MY IDEOLOGY," and [insert straw man fallacy], then I can confidently walk away knowing that I'm right and that you once again hold nonsensical views about the world.

Nice try, but disagreeing with you doesn't equate to "straw man fallacy". Sorry, but that IS a straw man.

I provided you with enough real data. Every time I do, you ignore it and lapse into a personal attack.

So, you provide an argument (lol, "real data"), it gets refuted, and then you provide no substantial counter-argument. Obviously, you don't really have much of a defense. My favorite gaping hole in your stance was the Unmentioned groups which attain the same outcomes which you (allegedly) despise, but again that's something you have to deal with. Hopefully, you have an ideological problem which prevents you from thinking clearly and consistently.

To sum up our exchange here: I can explain why you're making a stupid argument, but you can't do the same for me nor can you restore the standing of your argument. Eventually, ITT you'll get off your podium and start selling crazy in other threads.

A true free market ALWAYS leads to a monopoly. You want to pretend it leads to some utopia, but cannot point to even one single example where it has truly worked. Constraint is always required.

haha, if your 'reasoning' has been as 'clear' and 'valid' as before, then I'm sure we must take your additional claims seriously!

[Phatscotty]

click to hear the interview:
http://wpsu.org/radio/single_entry/LL-4 ... enoteradio
(There is no transcript of the main program, at least yet.. so follow the link to listen. Below are a few related articles posted with the interview.)

Take Note Radio: Privatization
Posted in Take Note Radio, 2013-04-07

A number of privatization initiatives have been proposed in Pennsylvania in recent years. A combination of state and local budget crises has prompted these so-called public-private partnerships that seek to transfer ownership of public assets or services to the private sector in exchange for lump sums of money. Everything from the state lottery to liquor sales and even prisons are up for grabs. The belief among proponents of these deals is that the private sector can do many things better—and usually for less money—than governments can. Critics say privatization often exploits financial hardship, undermines democracy and, in the long-run costs taxpayers money. Here to talk about that is Ellen Dannin, a law professor at Penn State and a leading legal expert on these public-private deals.

Some accompanying citations:
http://www.pfaw.org/rww-in-focus/predat ... ermining-d

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=1776350

http://articles.philly.com/2012-06-20/n ... trol-board

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index. ... _in_t.html

A cynic could see a pattern here... get people to oppose higher taxes, let the structures fail until people are desperate enough to agree to privatization, of in quick deals... and then sit back and laugh while you collect the money.

Is it really because of the belief the private sector can do better? Or is it because of the reality that the government fubar'd it and there is no other choice?

[BigBallinStalin]

Ironically, Player is the first one to point out when someone doesn't know what he or she is talking about (e.g. science) and takes great pains to make that person feel unknowledgeable. On the other hand, in threads like these, she clearly has no idea what she's talking about, but gets offended when anyone suggests that. In sum, like always, Player is hypocritical.

How could you say that?! Player deems herself to be a know-it-all, so she cannot be wrong! Obviously, you're wrong, you don't care about the environment, you think people have a negative value, and you enjoy eating puppies. You want to pretend it leads to some utopia, and sure, you can put up statistics that "prove" your ideas are correct, but what you cannot do is provide the fundamental understanding of where that data really came from.

It doesn't matter if its Rockafeller given away Kerosene. The only counter to that is rules generated from the masses.

This is the prime error in your thinking.. or rather, pretended thinking because you basically stop at that point.

HYPOCRITE!!!!!

[Lootifer]

Slight tangent (though fits within topic heading)...

Question for BBS and PS:

What do you think the best course under this situation is? (BBS you already know the context, PS see my earlier post on page 1 for details)

- Government is planning on partially privatising a major asset (book/asset value ~$4b NZD; market/potential earnings value: book value +/- 2b* as operates in a very high risk environment)
- Sale process kicked off approximately 12-18 months ago; shares go on sale 15th of this month; final price and listing happens early next month
- It has been publically known for approximately 6 months that an major consumer (literally makes up 15% of the market demand) is at risk of leaving the marketplace
- Sale process has not changed in light of this
- This risk has an indeterminent resolution period

Now assuming you guys are both in support of privatisation (conversion of a SoE to a 49% private/51% SoE). How would you have handled the addition of a major risk (which will be accounted for in the final pricing)? Would you delay? Truck on through?