Privatize, privatize, privatize

[Spexxvet]

Enron, Worldcom, Exxon Valdez, mine catastrophes, Hewlett-Packard, outrageous big-oil profits and pump prices, and now the fire in North Carolina. Why would anybody in their right mind want to trust the private sector to do the right thing (the right thing meaning having responsiblity beyond lining their pockets with cash)? Would I trust my retirement to the private sector? No fucking way! Would I support relaxing regulations on these greedy bastards? Absolutely not. I'm sure that if we let down on standards, we'll soon have hot and cold running toxic waste in our kitchens. The bright side is that cancer would get us before we felt really upset about the e-coli we'd get from the private sector cutting corners in the spinach plant.

I think Halliburten should run the country. Oh, I forgot; it already does.

[Pangloss62]

Wow, spexvet, you speak my language.

[Beestie]

Let's abolish the private sector and let the government do everything.

I can't think of a single thing the private sector does better than the government.

[mrnoodle]

Lining their pockets with cash is what keeps companies going. There are varying levels of corruption of course, but in the private sector, competition keeps things in balance. You can choose from company X, Y, or Z to get your product. If the government is in charge, there is no competition, no balance, nothing BUT corruption. You are told what product you will get, how much you will pay for it, and how much of the rest of your paycheck goes to other people so they can have product without paying for it.

capitalism > socialism. Get over your jealousy of other people's money, and make your own. no offense.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

Lining their pockets with cash is what keeps companies going.

Exactly. So if there's a choice between money and anything else, they'll pick money.

There are varying levels of corruption of course,

Corruption is only a small part of the issue. Insurance companies making complicated rules to minimize payout isn't corruption, it's "good business" and "best practices", and standardized across the industry. That's not to say there isn't corruption, too, but what is corruption? Breaking the government's regulations.

but in the private sector, competition keeps things in balance. You can choose from company X, Y, or Z to get your product

And part of the government's job is to make sure that remains true. Capitalism tends toward monopoly. The private sector is important, but it shouldn't be trusted to do the right thing, it should be strongly encouraged via regulations.

[Spexxvet]

If X, Y, and Z are all poluting, or whatever, I wouldn't call it a choice.

[mrnoodle]

A corporation's job is to make money. This isn't a bad thing. Regulations are supposed keep them in check so that the playing field is more even and environmental and social concerns are weighed into the equation. But if GM makes eleventy billion dollars, that means cheaper cars for us. Left to its own devices, the boardroom only cares about the money. But it's not operating in a vacuum. There has to be demand for product, demand for quality, demand for safe and socially conscious manufacturing. It's a symbiotic relationship between "the consumer", society and government, and the company.

I don't buy the idea that we should all have whatever we need funneled to us through the government in exchange for taxes. That unbalances the equation, and leaves you with a Cuba or USSR. Sure, you can have what you need to live, but that's it. If half the people polluting the internet with socialist dogma had their way, they wouldn't be able to afford the computers they rant on.

You could use the library computer, but that's for porn.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

... But if GM makes eleventy billion dollars, that means cheaper cars for us...

No, it doesn't. It doesn't even mean that those who produce those cars will benefit more. It means that the stockholders and executives will get richer

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

I don't buy the idea that we should all have whatever we need funneled to us through the government in exchange for taxes ...

I don't, either. But there is certainly some middle ground, where the environment isn't ruined and public health and wellbeing is maintained. Sure, demand is a factor. If everyone stops buying product X because it's bad for people or the environment, the product goes away, and the problem associated with said product will stop being created. But the problems caused by the product may continue - a chemical byproduct may no lnger be created, but it's mishandling may taint the water supply for years.

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

You could use the library computer, but that's for porn.

IM: Former Rep. Foley, put your hands on the table.

My issue, mrnoodle, is that there are people who knowingly do bad things just to make money. This is unacceptable to me.

[busterb]

Where's TW when ya need him?

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

You could use the library computer, but that's for porn.

Err, the public library's computers are paid for by local taxpayers. Maybe we should privatize libraries and make them like clubs you have to pay to join. That way, only people with money enough could have access to information. It would also solve the problem of all those stinky homeless people hanging out in public libraries.

Private corporations are not run by saints. Just what things that the government now does would you like to see privatized, anyhow?

[tw]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

A corporation's job is to make money. ... Left to its own devices, the boardroom only cares about the money. But it's not operating in a vacuum. There has to be demand for product, demand for quality, demand for safe and socially conscious manufacturing. It's a symbiotic relationship between "the consumer", society and government, and the company.

When the purpose of a company is to make money, then eventually the company does not make profits and its products are some of the world's worst. The examples are so numerous that only people who believe propaganda, who rationalize using sound byte, would believe that profit myth.

When HP was most profitable, profit was not its objective. Even HP's corporate statement made that fact obvious and blunt. Bill and Dave stories are legendary and define a company driven by its product - serving it customers. GM has no profits because GM will do anything to make profits - including short its pension funds, stifle the 70 HP per liter engine, refuse to even use overhead cam engines 30+ years after the technology was standard, stifle the McPherson struct for 34 years, and pocket $million from the government intended to develop a hybrid.

Current situation from HP goes right back to what I reported here after the Compaq HP merger meeting. (BTW, I always wondered the relationship between Fiorina and Ann Baskins). Pam Dunn is a continuing symtpom of Fiorina, a classic example of what happens when a person has no idea how work gets done and believes the MBA school lie about profits being the purpose.

I have worked in locations where I often thought about tracking down members of the local fire department and tell them to be educated about that chemical. In other locations where people mostly came from where the work gets done (ie California), same safety problems did not exist. Therefore those CA companies were also more profitable.

When the purpose of a company is its profits, well, that was the mentality of that BP executive whose cost control mentality eventually causes massive corrosion of the Alaska pipeline. He was classic of one who lied; thought profits rather than the product were more important.

When profits are more important than product, we also have actions very much common to communism. If your roof is leaking, for a communist organization, then it is not until the government official tells you otherwise. If your roof is leaking in a company so concerned with profits, then it is not until the corporate officers say otherwise. If your roof is leaking in a company concerned about the products, then you have discretion to make the decision and authorize its repair. Nothing new in that story.

[9th Engineer]

The way to make money on any sort of long-term basis is never to cut corners, you end up paying back all your profits to cover the damage you cause. There's no point in saving $100 on something if it costs $300 to fix it in a month. The weakest point of the American business system is that everything depends on short term profits. If a company puts lots of funding into programs that will make them the most competitive in a few years but eats all their profits now, then their stock drops and the banks start screaming. Google the term keiretsu for information on how things work now.

Uh oh, does this mean I'm agreeing with tw? I think I'm gonna pop a few asprin and lie down for awhile...

[tw]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

Uh oh, does this mean I'm agreeing with tw? I think I'm gonna pop a few asprin and lie down for awhile...

It is a well understood principle in development. The last 10% is often where 50% of its value is found. When cost controls get instituted, that last 10% somehow gets eliminated in cost controls. The Pontiac Fiero was one example.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

The way to make money on any sort of long-term basis is never to cut corners, you end up paying back all your profits to cover the damage you cause. There's no point in saving $100 on something if it costs $300 to fix it in a month. The weakest point of the American business system is that everything depends on short term profits. If a company puts lots of funding into programs that will make them the most competitive in a few years but eats all their profits now, then their stock drops and the banks start screaming. Google the term keiretsu for information on how things work now....

Or they can put out a poor quality product, and when the problems start, they can fold up and move to the next poor quality product. After all, the owner has made a big salary, so what if the "corporate assets" are taken throught litigation. Or they can lie about the product (Viox, anyone? Pinto?). Or they can beg the government for protection. After all, if company X goes out of business because of the flaw in product Y that kills people, think of all the jobs that will be lost!