Private Enterprise and Correctional Facilities
-
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!
-
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:
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.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
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.
Speaking of secure banks, did you, by any chance, watch Hard Talk on the BBC when they were interviewing the ex-Prime Minister of Iceland? I saw it just last night. He (the ex-Prime Minister) was very intent on implicating England as one of the major facilitators of Iceland's financial collapse.
-
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
Nice slogan. You repeat it to yourself every night before going to sleep to be sure to believe it?
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Who would want to government being able to directly look at your bank accounts?
Let me translate that into UK English: Who would want to government being able to directly lose your bank accounts? :)
Heh. Yeah, well, who would want either? Or both??!?
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Since private industry can always do it cheaper and more efficiently than government
Nice slogan. You repeat it to yourself every night before going to sleep to be sure to believe it?
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread Fold with us! ¤ flickr
Ka?l wrote:
Nice slogan. You repeat it to yourself every night before going to sleep to be sure to believe it?
No need to. Self-evident truths need no reinforcement.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
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.
Speaking of secure banks, did you, by any chance, watch Hard Talk on the BBC when they were interviewing the ex-Prime Minister of Iceland? I saw it just last night. He (the ex-Prime Minister) was very intent on implicating England as one of the major facilitators of Iceland's financial collapse.
-
Government officials themselves don't count!
73Zeppelin wrote:
Government officials themselves don't count!
It's not that they don't, it's that they prove over and over again that they can't, that bothers me.
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.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
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.
Speaking of secure banks, did you, by any chance, watch Hard Talk on the BBC when they were interviewing the ex-Prime Minister of Iceland? I saw it just last night. He (the ex-Prime Minister) was very intent on implicating England as one of the major facilitators of Iceland's financial collapse.
No, but I'll catch the repeat. However, the ex-Icelandic Prime Minister I remember wasn't too pleased when Britain used Anti-Terror legislation against certain Iceland Assets/Government late last year. And yes, I can understand his dismay as a huge quantity of money from UK Local Authorities, UK Police Forces and private individuals and so on were on deposit there. But not all is UK's fault, Icelandic banks must also take some of the blame, they were offering higher than normal interest rates on deposited savings and were thus rather more vulnerable.
-
Ka?l wrote:
Nice slogan. You repeat it to yourself every night before going to sleep to be sure to believe it?
No need to. Self-evident truths need no reinforcement.
-
Yeah, a belief does not need a justification.
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread Fold with us! ¤ flickr
KaЯl wrote:
Yeah, a belief does not need a justification.
Neither does a fact. :)