Private Enterprise and Correctional Facilities
-
fat_boy wrote:
Then you missed the very obvious: Any priovately ownbed entity has the principle goal of making as much money as possible. Any government owned entity has the principle goal of serving the populace. Thats the problem with privatisation carried out by the likes of Thatcher. It just leads to greed and abuse.
You seem to be agreeing with me that different institutional arrangements create different incentives (though your claim that "Any government owned entity has the principle goal of serving the populace" is overly simple, at best).
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
(though your claim that "Any government owned entity has the principle goal of serving the populace" is overly simple, at best).
Not so. Whether it lives up to its goals in a seperate issue, but at root, the goal of a government (and I dont mean partisan government, but the permenant government, in the UK its called Whitehall) is to serve the populace, and hence the country. (At least for a democratic country. For non democratic countries there is little point discussing this since the goal will always be to serve the rulling classes, however, as hostory shows, even in those countries the populace will eventually get fed up if they are not served to some degree).
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
modified on Friday, February 13, 2009 5:11 AM
-
That's disgusting, each Judge got 1.3 MILLION dollars! Of course it'll disappear off the radar and they'll probably get away scot free. Makes me wonder if banks should be in private hands.
AndyKEnZ wrote:
Makes me wonder if banks should be in private hands.
I think so. In order to be secure, banks need to be profitable enterprises. Since private industry can always do it cheaper and more efficiently than government, I think the banks should remain privatised. Who would want to government being able to directly look at your bank accounts?
-
AndyKEnZ wrote:
Makes me wonder if banks should be in private hands.
I think so. In order to be secure, banks need to be profitable enterprises. Since private industry can always do it cheaper and more efficiently than government, I think the banks should remain privatised. Who would want to government being able to directly look at your bank accounts?
73Zeppelin wrote:
Since private industry can always do it cheaper and more efficiently than government, I think the banks should remain privatised.
Perhaps in relation to banking, but when the supply of water in the UK was privatised it was a disaster. Prices went up and the quality went down.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
US Judges Admit Jailing Children for Money[^]
John Carson
Wow, what a great world we live in!
-
John Carson wrote:
(though your claim that "Any government owned entity has the principle goal of serving the populace" is overly simple, at best).
Not so. Whether it lives up to its goals in a seperate issue, but at root, the goal of a government (and I dont mean partisan government, but the permenant government, in the UK its called Whitehall) is to serve the populace, and hence the country. (At least for a democratic country. For non democratic countries there is little point discussing this since the goal will always be to serve the rulling classes, however, as hostory shows, even in those countries the populace will eventually get fed up if they are not served to some degree).
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
modified on Friday, February 13, 2009 5:11 AM
fat_boy wrote:
Not so. Whether it lives up to its goals in a seperate issue, but at root, the goal of a government (and I dont mean partisan government, but the permenant government, in the UK its called Whitehall) is to serve the populace, and hence the country.
I'm talking about its actual goals, not some political theory about what its goals should be. Actual goals depend heavily on incentives, i.e., on what behaviour is rewarded.
John Carson
modified on Friday, February 13, 2009 8:21 AM
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Since private industry can always do it cheaper and more efficiently than government, I think the banks should remain privatised.
Perhaps in relation to banking, but when the supply of water in the UK was privatised it was a disaster. Prices went up and the quality went down.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Perhaps in relation to banking, but when the supply of water in the UK was privatised it was a disaster. Prices went up and the quality went down.
I could see that, since private enterprise is profit-maximising. For utilities companies, privatisation is usually bad. But a good bank is a profitable bank. Your money is most secure with a profitable bank.
-
John Carson wrote:
(though your claim that "Any government owned entity has the principle goal of serving the populace" is overly simple, at best).
Not so. Whether it lives up to its goals in a seperate issue, but at root, the goal of a government (and I dont mean partisan government, but the permenant government, in the UK its called Whitehall) is to serve the populace, and hence the country. (At least for a democratic country. For non democratic countries there is little point discussing this since the goal will always be to serve the rulling classes, however, as hostory shows, even in those countries the populace will eventually get fed up if they are not served to some degree).
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
modified on Friday, February 13, 2009 5:11 AM
fat_boy wrote:
Not so. Whether it lives up to its goals in a seperate issue, but at root, the goal of a government (and I dont mean partisan government, but the permenant government, in the UK its called Whitehall) is to serve the populace, and hence the country. (At least for a democratic country. For non democratic countries there is little point discussing this since the goal will always be to serve the rulling classes, however, as hostory shows, even in those countries the populace will eventually get fed up if they are not served to some degree).
I think you are being too idealist.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Not so. Whether it lives up to its goals in a seperate issue, but at root, the goal of a government (and I dont mean partisan government, but the permenant government, in the UK its called Whitehall) is to serve the populace, and hence the country.
I'm talking about its actual goals, not some political theory about what its goals should be. Actual goals depend heavily on incentives, i.e., on what behaviour is rewarded.
John Carson
modified on Friday, February 13, 2009 8:21 AM
-
fat_boy wrote:
Not so. Whether it lives up to its goals in a seperate issue, but at root, the goal of a government (and I dont mean partisan government, but the permenant government, in the UK its called Whitehall) is to serve the populace, and hence the country. (At least for a democratic country. For non democratic countries there is little point discussing this since the goal will always be to serve the rulling classes, however, as hostory shows, even in those countries the populace will eventually get fed up if they are not served to some degree).
I think you are being too idealist.
73Zeppelin wrote:
I think you are being too idealist.
I dont think so. Take my previous example, the water supply industry, as owned by government. Its purpose is to provide the cheapest safe drinking water to the whole country. Its employees arent paid as much as in the private sector (perhaps for manager, but not for manual workers) but the work is easy and low stress. As a provatised firm its purpose is to make the shareholders as rich as possible. Fuck the quality, and fuck the customer because there isnt any damn competition anyway! Yea, and we were fucked, biggly.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Wow, what a great world we live in!
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
I think you are being too idealist.
I dont think so. Take my previous example, the water supply industry, as owned by government. Its purpose is to provide the cheapest safe drinking water to the whole country. Its employees arent paid as much as in the private sector (perhaps for manager, but not for manual workers) but the work is easy and low stress. As a provatised firm its purpose is to make the shareholders as rich as possible. Fuck the quality, and fuck the customer because there isnt any damn competition anyway! Yea, and we were fucked, biggly.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
In Canada, the government controlled water company had a major problem with contamination with e. coli bacteria. There was an attempt at a cover-up and the citizens of the affected town successfully brought a law suit against the government for reparations. Governments are also notoriously untrustable and corrupt. Famous episodes include Watergate, the Bush administration and countless others. That is why I suggested your view of government was idealist. I'm almost tempted now to say it was quite naive.
-
Sentences are too leniant anyway, more kids like these hould be locked up!
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Sentences are too leniant anyway, more kids like these hould be locked up!
Yes. Subject them to the wonders of the Panopticon! "Morals reformed — health preserved — industry invigorated — instruction diffused — public burthens lightened — Economy seated, as it were, upon a rock — the gordian knot of the poor-law not cut, but untied — all by a simple idea in Architecture!" See, it builds character!
modified on Friday, February 13, 2009 9:06 AM
-
Sentences are too leniant anyway, more kids like these hould be locked up!
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
One 17-year-old boy was sentenced to three months' detention for being in the company of another minor caught shoplifting. Yeah, sentences should definitely be decided by bribery.
-
In Canada, the government controlled water company had a major problem with contamination with e. coli bacteria. There was an attempt at a cover-up and the citizens of the affected town successfully brought a law suit against the government for reparations. Governments are also notoriously untrustable and corrupt. Famous episodes include Watergate, the Bush administration and countless others. That is why I suggested your view of government was idealist. I'm almost tempted now to say it was quite naive.
73Zeppelin wrote:
Famous episodes include Watergate, the Bush administration and countless others. That is why I suggested your view of government was idealist. I'm almost tempted now to say it was quite naive.
That is why I specified non partisan government in my reply to Carson.
73Zeppelin wrote:
In Canada, the government controlled water company had a major problem with contamination with e. coli bacteria.
Yes, it can happen. By accident rather than negligence. Same thing hapened in the UK. If it hadnt been privatised no one would have sueds them, but because it had been, and the water bills had trebbled we sued the fuck out of them.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Famous episodes include Watergate, the Bush administration and countless others. That is why I suggested your view of government was idealist. I'm almost tempted now to say it was quite naive.
That is why I specified non partisan government in my reply to Carson.
73Zeppelin wrote:
In Canada, the government controlled water company had a major problem with contamination with e. coli bacteria.
Yes, it can happen. By accident rather than negligence. Same thing hapened in the UK. If it hadnt been privatised no one would have sueds them, but because it had been, and the water bills had trebbled we sued the fuck out of them.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
AndyKEnZ wrote:
Makes me wonder if banks should be in private hands.
I think so. In order to be secure, banks need to be profitable enterprises. Since private industry can always do it cheaper and more efficiently than government, I think the banks should remain privatised. Who would want to government being able to directly look at your bank accounts?
73Zeppelin wrote:
Who would want to government being able to directly look at your bank accounts?
Sarkozy?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
John Carson wrote:
I'm talking about its actual goals
So, in your opinion, what are the actual goals of, say, a nationallised electricity company? (ie non comercial and no shareholders)
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
So, in your opinion, what are the actual goals of, say, a nationallised electricity company? (ie non comercial and no shareholders)
It depends on how it is set up, which varies from country to country (and possibly region to region, where there is autonomy). Some such companies are given profit goals to meet, others are given cost benchmarks, reliability benchmarks... Some operate with a high level of autonomy from government ministers, others are subject to signficant ministerial control (and the legislation governing ministerial action can vary in terms of things like reporting requirements and the possibility of review by the courts or other agencies). Sometimes nationalised firms may operate in competition with private firms, sometimes they are monopolies. All these details affect incentives. Employees in these government organisations (up to and including management) are to a substantial degree motivated by the same sorts of considerations as employees elsewhere: a concern for their rates of pay, promotion prospects, job security, working conditions, level of autonomy and accountability...and the pursuit of their objectives in these respects is not synonymous with pursuing the public interest. If they can get paid a lot of money for doing very little, they may well be happy to do that. In general, I have a higher opinion than most people do of the efficiency and social beneficence of government organisations. However, I don't just assume that they automatically work for the social good. It depends on their political masters and on the incentive structures within which they operate.
John Carson
-
fat_boy wrote:
Perhaps in relation to banking, but when the supply of water in the UK was privatised it was a disaster. Prices went up and the quality went down.
I could see that, since private enterprise is profit-maximising. For utilities companies, privatisation is usually bad. But a good bank is a profitable bank. Your money is most secure with a profitable bank.
73Zeppelin wrote:
Your money is most secure with a profitable bank.
That might once have been true but when things go wrong big time, as now on both sides of the Atlantic, a secure bank has became an endangered species. Only Governments can issue legal assurances for people's savings as shown by the Northern Rock failure and subsequent Nationalisation. Regarding Utility Companies, if it serves the public interest then a privatized Utility Company can work irrespective if it is water, gas, electricity or telephone. But the danger is that customers can find themselves at a substantial disadvantage (price, quality & customer service) especially where the local utility is a monopoly, and more so if it is foreign owned.
-
Sentences are too leniant anyway, more kids like these hould be locked up!
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Who would want to government being able to directly look at your bank accounts?
Sarkozy?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Government officials themselves don't count!