Bar Stool Economics

[DavidEBSmith]

David,

I probably do suffer from "Government Derangement Syndrome" right along with the other 4 dissenting Supreme Court Justices that in 2005 were opposed to the seizing of private land from one individual and giving it to another..

 

Actually, 3 of the 4 dissenting Supreme Court justices were fine with seizing private land from one individual and giving it to another, as long as it was for a public purpose.

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZD.html

 

Our cases have generally identified three categories of takings that comply with the public use requirement, though it is in the nature of things that the boundaries between these categories are not always firm. Two are relatively straightforward and uncontroversial. First, the sovereign may transfer private property to public ownership–such as for a road, a hospital, or a military base. See, e.g., Old Dominion Land Co. v. United States, 269 U.S. 55 (1925); Rindge Co. v. County of Los Angeles, 262 U.S. 700 (1923). Second, the sovereign may transfer private property to private parties, often common carriers, who make the property available for the public’s use–such as with a railroad, a public utility, or a stadium. See, e.g., National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Boston & Maine Corp., 503 U.S. 407 (1992); Mt. Vernon-Woodberry Cotton Duck Co. v. Alabama Interstate Power Co., 240 U.S. 30 (1916). But “public ownership” and “use-by-the-public” are sometimes too constricting and impractical ways to define the scope of the Public Use Clause. Thus we have allowed that, in certain circumstances and to meet certain exigencies, takings that serve a public purpose also satisfy the Constitution even if the property is destined for subsequent private use. See, e.g., Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954); Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984).

 

The fourth dissenting justice was fine with seizing private land from one individual and giving to another individual as long as it was for public use:

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZD1.html

 

For all these reasons, I would revisit our Public Use Clause cases and consider returning to the original meaning of the Public Use Clause: that the government may take property only if it actually uses or gives the public a legal right to use the property.

 

Of course, in our system, the majority makes the law.

[ghaverkamp]

Obviouly you never read nor listened to any of what Stossel has said or you never would have made such a statement.

 

Why listen to him when he can't even get basic facts right? Are sources like Stossel, who is clearly ill-informed on such widespread things as congestion pricing for road, "Black & White"?

[ghaverkamp]

Actually, 3 of the 4 dissenting Supreme Court justices were fine with seizing private land from one individual and giving it to another, as long as it was for a public purpose.

 

Now, wait just a minute. That's not what the headlines said!

[Lawman]

Well counselor,

 

After those homes and land were seized by the government and turned over to New London how well did it work out? Would you say the new development is best described for "public use" or "public purpose"?

[Whip]

Obviouly you never read nor listened to any of what Stossel has said or you never would have made such a statement.

 

Why listen to him when he can't even get basic facts right? Are sources like Stossel, who is clearly ill-informed on such widespread things as congestion pricing for road, "Black & White"?

 

 

If your right take him up on the bet.

 

My offer goes for you too.

 

$1000 from Stossel and $1000 from me.

 

 

Now that is Black and White......and Green.$$$$$$.

 

 

If all you government funded dudes are so sure that Big Bro can do anything better than the private sector.....go for it.

 

 

 

I am putting up my money.

 

Talk is cheap

 

 

Don't make me add a bunch of emos to this thread.

 

 

 

 

 

[ghaverkamp]

If your right take him up on the bet.

 

All I said was that he can't get the most basic facts right. In actuality, my guess is that he intentionally misstated the facts, because the truth undercuts his argument, and he can probably count on his audience to do fact checking.

[Antimatter]

Obviouly you never read nor listened to any of what Stossel has said or you never would have made such a statement.

 

Why listen to him when he can't even get basic facts right? Are sources like Stossel, who is clearly ill-informed on such widespread things as congestion pricing for road, "Black & White"?

 

 

If your right take him up on the bet.

 

My offer goes for you too.

 

$1000 from Stossel and $1000 from me.

 

 

Now that is Black and White......and Green.$$$$$$.

 

 

If all you government funded dudes are so sure that Big Bro can do anything better than the private sector.....go for it.

 

 

 

I am putting up my money.

 

Talk is cheap

 

 

Don't make me add a bunch of emos to this thread.

 

 

 

 

 

How do you define better? Less cost or fewer negative outcomes? And how do you quantify things like environmental degradation and the loss of human life?

[Ken H.]

...someone's pet project that benefits few at the expense of all.

Now now Russell, you’re getting perilously close to some of my socialistic views! (But then I’ve always thought sooner or later you’ll come around.)

[Pilgrim]

 

Actually, 3 of the 4 dissenting Supreme Court justices were fine with seizing private land from one individual and giving it to another, as long as it was for a public purpose.

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZD.html

 

Our cases have generally identified three categories of takings that comply with the public use requirement, though it is in the nature of things that the boundaries between these categories are not always firm. Two are relatively straightforward and uncontroversial. First, the sovereign may transfer private property to public ownership–such as for a road, a hospital, or a military base. See, e.g., Old Dominion Land Co. v. United States, 269 U.S. 55 (1925); Rindge Co. v. County of Los Angeles, 262 U.S. 700 (1923). Second, the sovereign may transfer private property to private parties, often common carriers, who make the property available for the public’s use–such as with a railroad, a public utility, or a stadium. See, e.g., National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Boston & Maine Corp., 503 U.S. 407 (1992); Mt. Vernon-Woodberry Cotton Duck Co. v. Alabama Interstate Power Co., 240 U.S. 30 (1916). But “public ownership” and “use-by-the-public” are sometimes too constricting and impractical ways to define the scope of the Public Use Clause. Thus we have allowed that, in certain circumstances and to meet certain exigencies, takings that serve a public purpose also satisfy the Constitution even if the property is destined for subsequent private use. See, e.g., Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954); Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984).

 

Of course, in our system, the majority makes the law.

 

Eebie, you've cherrypicked that quote from the decision. It is accurate as a stand-alone but Justice O'Conner makes it clear farther down that she and her co-dissenters are uncomfortable with the decision because ...

 

" In moving away from our decisions sanctioning the condemnation of harmful property use, the Court today significantly expands the meaning of public use. It holds that the sovereign may take private property currently put to ordinary private use, and give it over for new, ordinary private use, so long as the new use is predicted to generate some secondary benefit for the public–such as increased tax revenue, more jobs, maybe even aesthetic pleasure. But nearly any lawful use of real private property can be said to generate some incidental benefit to the public. Thus, if predicted (or even guaranteed) positive side-effects are enough to render transfer from one private party to another constitutional, then the words “for public use” do not realistically exclude any takings, and thus do not exert any constraint on the eminent domain power."

 

With that, she explains why so many of us do not trust the government, a sentiment shared by the Founders. Expansions of power like that, especially when confirmed by those few unelected officers charged with safeguarding the document that is designed to protect the citizens from government overreaching, is frightening.

 

A cautionary note, Eebie - you indulge in flights of unrestrained hyperbole in many of your responses. You attribute to others positions not held and call into question their motives and denigrate their ability to think independently and arrive at their own conclusions.

 

I doubt that anyone here advocates elimination of government, and to say so is just creating a straw man. Particularly among friends, even internet friend, it is blind foolishness. The basis of most of our debates is the extent to which government may be allowed to operate. That is a legitimate subject for debate. In fact, that debate began as the Constitution was being written and has continued ever since. It should always continue.

 

Pilgrim

 

 

[Ken H.]

BTW... John Stossel has a bet for you.

Stossel’s so called “bet” is nonsensical because it is based on the irresolvable paradox that you can never prove a negative. It’s a common ploy used by many pundits today when making what at first blush appears to be logical arguments, but when looked at closer contains no logic or support at all.

 

It’s easy to do, heck I’ll do it right here – “I’ll bet anyone $1000 (Canadian, hee, hee) if you can prove that the government can build a bridge cheaper than the members of BMWST.com could.” You can flip the sentence structure around but it says the exact same thing - “I’ll bet anyone $1000 I can prove that the members of BMWST.com can build a bridge cheaper than the government could.” Unless both the government and BMWST both built the same bridge in great enough quantities to have a valid statistical sample; we will never know. An antidotal example (e.g. Bridge A by the government cost more than Bridge B by a private enterprise did) is no evidence/proof at all.

 

We can never validly conclude that, “Private enterprise always does it better” because there is no private enterprise that has ever done everything (“always” was the word) government has done.

 

Thus I and John Stossel are quite safe with our bets.

 

[Whip]

Ken I appreciate what your saying, but I am sure that is not what Mr Stossel has done or he would have made the amount much larger.

 

His bet is just what it seems.

 

 

 

 

 

[John Ranalletta]

IMO, the issue is who can do what better; rather, the issue is when government doesn't do something well, there are no negative consequences for those involved in the decision as there would be for a private company (unless, of course, that company is a GSE or a TBTF bank that makes huge political donations).

• When a public works project is over budget, no one is ever fired.
• When SEC employees are caught downloading porn most of the work day instead of protecting investors, no one is fired.
• When weatherization money is wasted by the billions, no one is fired.
• The PO loses billions annually and no one is fired.
• Fannie and Freddie buy billions of worthless assets and no one is fired.

Yes, these are my perceptions and they persist because no one has shown me facts to the contrary.

 

Government can do some things better than private enterprise. It's just that everything it does is "non recourse" for the people involved; whereas, in most businesses, making repeated mistakes, being over budget or failing to produce enough revenue carries a prospect of financial penalty and/or job loss.

 

Absent the prospect of individual responsibility and consequences, government is never motivated to do anything superbly, within budget and on time. How many managers and supervisors in federal, state and municipal government have come forward proactively to reduce expenses and headcount w/o being mandated to do so because of falling revenue? I'd offer the number is very, very, very small.

[Twisties]

It's just that everything it does is "non recourse" for the people involved;

 

This is of course completely untrue, and reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the operations of government.

 

Absent the prospect of individual responsibility and consequences, government is never motivated to do anything superbly, within budget and on time. How many managers and supervisors in federal, state and municipal government have come forward proactively to reduce expenses and headcount w/o being mandated to do so because of falling revenue? I'd offer the number is very, very, very small.

 

I trust you do not understand how grievously insulting your words are to those of us, like Kent (Pilgrim), like Mike (Mike the moderator), like Mitch (Joe_Frickin_Friday), like myself, like Jamie Edmunds, like Phil (1bmwfan), like Steve Carr, and so, so many others here on this board who strive, or have striven, and often succeeded, to build institutions of excellence in government. We have, at one point or another in our careers, served the public, and not for money, but for the other rewards of employment: Professional accomplishment and growth, the satisfaction of a job well done, doing something because it needed doing, the responsibility of a mission critical task, because it is what they were born to do. These are the values of public service, and I think you find them throughout government.

 

You claim to be a professional business consultant, if I understand, and yet you seem to lack any notion common to modern views of employee motivation and management.

 

You claim to know how government works, but it is entirely obvious that you have never actually seen it work. Believe it or not, most of the management I have worked for in government were dedicated to small efficient organizations. It is quite common.

 

But, let us consider the example of own Billy (Lawman). As I hear tell, Billy literally Is The Law in his corner of Texas. A public employee, deeply distrustful of the excesses of government, and dedicated to the principles of small government to his very core. Yet, I am told, he is the go to person in his jurisdiction, and beyond. He is respected as a problem solver that will get the right result in many very difficult situations. I submit that Billy actually represents public service at it's best, and that he is not an anomaly.

 

Shall we take a look at Phil (1bmwfan). I sat with the man as he struggled with his (then new, and now obsolete) ALS diagnosis and chose to go forward with his commitment to volunteerism that next weekend. Chose to keep his fireman job for as long as he possibly could, because of his deep inner need to save people, to do what he had dedicated himself to do, to make his life meaningful. That's what's at the core of our Acting Captain Challinor. He too is an advocate of small government.

 

I could go on. There must be over two hundred folk on this board who serve the public with pride and distinction, some in the ranks, some as professionals, some as management: All with great influence on our lives.

[Whip]

It sounds like the truth hurts......

 

 

 

Black and White Baby.

 

 

[chrisolson]

Ok, on a less serious note

 

1. I don't care about the bet money

2. I don't care about Stossel

3. I'm not a gov funded advocate dude

4. I'm not enamored of huggin trees either but I do appreciate clean air and water

5. I have listened to NPR

6. Honest thoughts rather than 1 line sound bites would be appreciated

 

So, I'm tryin to figure out a for profit business model that provides for the National Defense. The constitution mandates the gov provide it, but lets assume we skip that part. And no, the gov contracting out doesn't count, it needs to be a stand alone business like Xe Services LLC or maybe Wars R Us, INC. that makes a profit for its owners/stockholders by providing a better service directly to its customers than its competitor - which in this case is the federal gov. Also for the sake of discussion, lets assume that magically, a proportional amount of everyone's fed tax that's used for military purposes was not not withheld if the gov stopped providing for the National Defense.

 

Consider ....

 

How do you come up with a pricing model for times of peace vs. times of war that people can afford?

What do you do about folks who won't pay for a specific war or don't want to pay at all?

How do you market/price an aircraft carrier?

Would you maintain the division of the services like car models and what if folks don't really like the Marines or the Coast Guard?

How do you provide for competition in the marketplace?

Could competition even exist?

Do we really want the commander of a nuclear sub to be more loyal to a CEO than the country?

I'm sure there's more ...

 

OK, the intro was lighthearted, but the questions are real

[Whip]

I sure miss ya, Mr Olson.

 

I wish you would come around more often.

 

Some of the best times of my life have been spent with you.

 

 

 

 

 

[chrisolson]

Yeah, we oughta just ride ...

 

So I wonder what the consensus is? Should Wars R Us be publicly traded or privately held?

[DavidEBSmith]

With that, she explains why so many of us do not trust the government, a sentiment shared by the Founders.

 

And the Founders distrusted government so much they created one, with the power to take private property for public use.

 

You attribute to others positions not held and call into question their motives and denigrate their ability to think independently and arrive at their own conclusions.

 

To paraphrase someone recently from Facebook, Hey Pot, I'd like you to meet my friend Kettle, you have a lot in common.

 

[DavidEBSmith]

It sounds like the truth hurts......

 

 

 

Black and White Baby.

 

 

Larry, my friend, reading what Jan wrote and your response to it, you sound like a braying jacka**. And I mean that in the most constructive way.

[eddd]

While I'm really late to this dance, the road examples by Stossel were picked because they support his position.

 

Let's bring this closer to home.

 

Utah 95, Utah 12, Fishlake...

 

Are private companies are going to build and maintain these roads? What would the toll have to be to be profitable?

 

Carry it further. Turn all roads and streets over to private enterprise. The fragmented toll system would be totally chaotic.

 

Is government the answer to everything? Of course not. There needs to be a balance.

[Twisties]

While I'm really late to this dance, the road examples by Stossel were picked because they support his position.

 

Let's bring this closer to home.

 

Utah 95, Utah 12, Fishlake...

 

Are private companies are going to build and maintain these roads? What would the toll have to be to be profitable?

 

Carry it further. Turn all roads and streets over to private enterprise. The fragmented toll system would be totally chaotic.

 

Is government the answer to everything? Of course not. There needs to be a balance.

 

Actually Ed, the roads Stossel picked do not support his position, at least not CA-99. A simple fact check will show that.

 

For one thing, it was built on an existing CalTrans right of way. I can see 'ole Billy now when we give private enterprise the right to eminent domain directly so that they can build roads for profit witout government in their way.

 

Moreover, Stossel makes it sound like private enterprise came up with this really neat idea despite government. Actually the CA legislature authorized such public-private partnerships 5 years before the road was built, CA was actively seeking a public-private partnership for this road, and CalTrans designed the road.

 

Worse, to get a private partner (the goal was to access the private bond market, the private partner funded the building and built it on CalTrans property), CalTrans had to agree not to build any competing roads for 35 years. This worked so well that in 2003 CalTrans ended up buying the thing back from the private entity for about 50% more than it cost to build, so they could make improvements and add additional capacity. CalTrans then completely modernized the systems and converted it to the no stop tolling system in place today. In fact the road is designed, owned and operated by CalTrans.

 

This hardly seems like a triumph of industry over government, nor a shining example of innovative thinking in the private sector and stodginess in government. Quite the opposite in fact.

[Whip]

While I'm really late to this dance, the road examples by Stossel were picked because they support his position.

 

Let's bring this closer to home.

 

Utah 95, Utah 12, Fishlake...

 

Are private companies are going to build and maintain these roads? What would the toll have to be to be profitable?

 

Carry it further. Turn all roads and streets over to private enterprise. The fragmented toll system would be totally chaotic.

 

Is government the answer to everything? Of course not. There needs to be a balance.

 

 

I agree with the sentiment, but I think your missing the point.

 

The government raised the money for the roads then should hire a private company to maintain em. That would be more efficient. It may already be that way???

 

It has nothing to do with tolls.

 

 

[Whip]

It sounds like the truth hurts......

 

 

 

Black and White Baby.

 

 

Larry, my friend, reading what Jan wrote and your response to it, you sound like a braying jacka**. And I mean that in the most constructive way.

 

 

Have you and Rahm been sharing dictionaries again?

 

I mean that in the funniest way.

 

 

 

[eddd]

While I'm really late to this dance, the road examples by Stossel were picked because they support his position.

 

Let's bring this closer to home.

 

Utah 95, Utah 12, Fishlake...

 

Are private companies are going to build and maintain these roads? What would the toll have to be to be profitable?

 

Carry it further. Turn all roads and streets over to private enterprise. The fragmented toll system would be totally chaotic.

 

Is government the answer to everything? Of course not. There needs to be a balance.

 

 

I agree with the sentiment, but I think your missing the point.

 

The government raised the money for the roads then should hire a private company to maintain em. That would be more efficient. It may already be that way???

 

It has nothing to do with tolls.

 

 

I didn't miss the point Stossel was making. His examples were all toll roads.

 

What you describe is in effect in some areas, and I have no problem with it and would like to see it expanded.

[Whip]

 

I didn't miss the point Stossel was making. His examples were all toll roads.

 

What you describe is in effect in some areas, and I have no problem with it and would like to see it expanded.

 

 

We agree on that point.

 

 

 

Indiana contracted a company to collect the tolls on an existing toll road and pay the state a large amount of cash. They are turning a profit and moving more cars more efficiently.

 

The toll road was losing money and moving less cars before they privatized it.

 

http://reason.org/news/show/1002785.html

 

 

Hoosiers are earning upwards of $6 of interest, a second—more than $500,000 a day—while other states struggle to adequately invest in their infrastructure. The state is expected to spend $11.9 billion on road construction by 2015. US-31, I-65 and I-69 are just a few of the beneficiaries of new investments.

 

[John Ranalletta]

I trust you do not understand how grievously insulting your words are to those of us, like Kent (Pilgrim), like Mike (Mike the moderator), like Mitch (Joe_Frickin_Friday), like myself, like Jamie Edmunds, like Phil (1bmwfan), like Steve Carr, and so, so many others here on this board who strive, or have striven, and often succeeded, to build institutions of excellence in government.

If you take personal offense, you didn't understand my points. It's not about whether the people you list do heroic deeds as government employees. It's about the fact that as any organization grows in size, it becomes slower and dumber. Don't insult my intelligence by saying because the people you list work heroically that our governments don't make hugely bad decisions that bear no personal, individual consequence. We all know better than that.

 

When I fly and the young guy or gal next to me is wearing BDUs, I try to get to know them; put them at ease, support them in the small ways a fellow passenger can; but I reserve the right to utterly detest the people who made the decision to sacrifice him or her in a senseless war and detest our empty-suit senators (Lugar and Bayh) who issue mealy-mouth replies to my letters.

 

I want them to wear the uniform, carry the rifle and defuse the IED before they send another kid to be killed or maimed. I want them to pay a price for this grand failure. What do you think is the likelihood of that? Doesn't that drive you mad? Doesn't it piss you off?

 

You do yourself and the others a disservice by personalizing the argument. I'd bet there are many public service employees who are as disgusted with the unending stream of dumb decisions made by governmental units, big and small as I. They're not stupid.

[John Ranalletta]

Indiana contracted a company to collect the tolls

Governor Daniels knew the toll road, under state ownership, could not be operated as efficiently as under private ownership. He knew that under state ownership, it would be a honey pot of patronage and nepotism.

 

The Indiana BMV receives customer service awards from organizations that rate retail establishments. Of course, it took the firing of a couple of directors who didn't understand that customer service was more important than doing things the way we used to do them. Daniels' staff knows there's a penalty for failure. You get fired or offered the chance to resign.

 

Daniels understood what Walmart knows: when you have more customers, open more registers; instead of having employees do only one function, train and expect them to do all the jobs (plates, licenses, registrations, etc.); eliminate the lines on the floor beyond which one could not move before being summoned; staggering registrations to eliminate the month-end crush; and, PUTTING CUSTOMER LAVATORIES IN THE BMV OFFICES. Believe it or not, pre-Daniels, a BMV customer who waited an hour or two would lose his/her place if forced to leave to find a lav.

 

He was determined to and succeeded to get it running like a business - even offering discounts for multiple-year registrations; online registrations. He believes the state government serves its citizens, not vice versa.

 

Without Mitch Daniels, we'd still be waiting hours to register a new bike; a task which might take a 15 minutes today.

 

Some of his initiatives have failed. So what? The key point is that he took INITIATIVE to change the status quo that wasn't meeting constituent needs.

[TomK]

 

 

 

 

Indiana contracted a company to collect the tolls on an existing toll road and pay the state a large amount of cash. They are turning a profit and moving more cars more efficiently.

 

The toll road was losing money and moving less cars before they privatized it.

 

http://reason.org/news/show/1002785.html

 

 

Hoosiers are earning upwards of $6 of interest, a second—more than $500,000 a day—while other states struggle to adequately invest in their infrastructure. The state is expected to spend $11.9 billion on road construction by 2015. US-31, I-65 and I-69 are just a few of the beneficiaries of new investments.

 

 

I don't see any evidence in that article that the private operator is doing a better job at running the toll road than the government. (The electronic toll collection should introduce efficiencies but most government run toll roads already do the same.)

 

Two things, however, appear to be different.

 

First, tolls have almost doubled since the privatization and are guaranteed to increase at a minimum inflation protected rate for 75 years. That's a tax increase.

 

Second, the state got a big chunk of money for selling the rights to a 75 year income stream. Seems like a 75 year bond to me. (What interest rate is Indiana paying?)

 

Tax increases and borrowing are pretty rough sells for any government in the present political environment. Move it to the private sector and call it something else and it's a different game. So it seems that privatization "works better" at avoiding the restrictions the political process places on government. In Indiana this duck no longer quacks like a duck but it is still a duck.

[John Ranalletta]

A state's assets are simply items in a portfolio to be managed. The old model, i.e. buy and hold, is dead. All old models are failing. The tollway was flipped to the right buyers at the right time.

 

The tollway was sold at the right time for a premium price. The state cashed a check for $3.8 billion that was dedicated to infrastructure improvements. While other states (Illinois) might owe billions in arrears to suppliers, Indiana is solvent and attracting new businesses.

 

Wish we had another toll road to sell.

[DavidEBSmith]

It's about the fact that as any organization grows in size, it becomes slower and dumber. Don't insult my intelligence by saying because the people you list work heroically that our governments don't make hugely bad decisions that bear no personal, individual consequence.

 

And the same goes for big, dumb corporations. It's a myth that if people make bad decisions in a corporation, the market will correct that problem. Oh, it may happen eventually, but big dumb dinosaur companies can absorb a lot of damage and lumber along for a long time before the market kills them off. We can start with BP, GM, Chrysler and start working our way back through history for examples. (But of course the problems of those companies are all because of government or unions, somehow).

 

I'd bet there are many public service employees who are as disgusted with the unending stream of dumb decisions made by governmental units, big and small as I. They're not stupid.

 

There is nobody who understands how dumb government can be better than a government employee. When you deal with a particularly thick government employee, remember, it's not like they do any better for us, and we have to work with them every day. But, unfortunately, when we point out dumb decisions and suggest that government could change its ways and can actually operate better, the reaction is a reflexive "everybody knows government can't do anything right". That's just willful blindness. It's not an "unending" stream of dumb decisions. Every decision made by government isn't dumb, and every government employee isn't lazy and incompetent. If you assume they are, you are making faulty assumptions, and as you know, faulty assumptions lead to bad decisions.

 

On the other hand, when a private attorney comes to court with a shell-shocked look in his eyes and says "That brief you guys filed was really good, I didn't expect that from your office", it's hard not to myself.

[DavidEBSmith]

Wish we had another toll road to sell.

 

We have an airport to sell, but nobody's buying these days.

[John Ranalletta]

Wish we had another toll road to sell.

 

We have an airport to sell, but nobody's buying these days.

Speaking of airports and acting proactively.

 

We don't need your airport, but we'll take your flights.

[tallman]

David,

Good points.

Government, usually one entity, slow moving, easy target.

Corporations, hmmm, where does it call "home"?

I can list thousands of corporations that have made dumb decisions.

 

I've owned and run my own business and in the same field worked for public, private and tax-exempt parochial institutions.

 

No blanket statement or broad brush is 100% correct when pointed at any/all forms of business.

If it were that easy, there would be no business failures and solutions would always work.

 

In theory our government (federal) can't go out of business.

In relaity it does some things pretty poorly but others not so bad.

At what point is the line drawn between services provided by public/private sector.

 

Toll road?

Who built it?

Thought so.

 

In our area a toll bridge was built with 2 purpose, well 3.

First get people across the water to the island (resort community).

Second, toll should eventually pay for bridge.

And third, it produced enough $$ to buld a new, toll free bridge.

 

We can't get rid of The Government so perhaps all of us who know how to do it better should take our skill base into the public sector and make it better.

I'm trying that approach.

Best wishes.

[David]

We can't get rid of The Government so perhaps all of us who know how to do it better should take our skill base into the public sector and make it better.

 

That's what I did. Fixed a lot of things, especially around the use of money and abuse of power.*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Then didn't get reelected.

[tallman]

Not all public sector jobs require you to be elected.

 

Just willing to work for less $$.

 

 

BTW, seen any abuse of power, extravagant bonus issues in the private sector lately?

 

People want more government services for less money.

They want the service to be perfect.

 

Not an achievable goal in most cases.

 

But of course private corporations do that (more/better for less) all the time.

Cars are trouble free, run better, and cost less money to buy and maintain than in the past.

Corporations everywhere are providing more goods, of higher quality, selling them for less money, and having nothing but positive impacts on our environment and economy.

 

Look at privatization of schools, for example.

A movement that seems to be losing momentum because?

 

I'm all for privatizing war, judiciary, and the 5-0.

Give me the right tools and I'll guarantee a crime free block.

Won't need no stinkin' prizohns neither.

 

 

 

[Antimatter]

Look at privatization of schools, for example.

A movement that seems to be losing momentum because?

 

There's a lot of fraud in the private education market, and it tends to cost more than public education. The first thing most private education companies do when taking over a public school is demand a big raise in taxes to cover their costs, and to make it worth their while (profit).

 

Private schools do very will in an environment where they can select their students and expect public schools to absorb the rest of the student population.

[tallman]

Please support your statement (fraud, and the ability of a private education company to raise taxes) with factual cites.

Thanks.

 

"Private schools do very will in an environment where they can select their students and expect public schools to absorb the rest of the student population."

 

So public schools do a better job with "the rest" of them?

[Antimatter]

Please support your statement (fraud, and the ability of a private education company to raise taxes) with factual cites.

Thanks.

 

"Private schools do very will in an environment where they can select their students and expect public schools to absorb the rest of the student population."

 

So public schools do a better job with "the rest" of them?

 

Google "Apollo Group Fraud" or "University of Phoenix Fraud".

 

Public schools aren't on a level playing field with private schools. As I tell people who favor vouchers, what makes you think the school will let your kid even with some sort of subsidy?

 

It always astounds me that people will pay tens of thousands more in private tuition, but when asked to pay more taxes to help public schools, they refuse.

[Ken H.]

...the issue is when government doesn't do something well, there are no negative consequences for those involved in the decision...

 

Of course, it took the firing of a couple of directors who didn't understand that customer service was more important than doing things the way we used to do them. Daniels' staff knows there's a penalty for failure. You get fired or offered the chance to resign.

Well which is it John? In government there are or are not negative consiquences/penalty (for poor performance)?

 

[CoarsegoldKid]

As I look at the Stossel argument regarding roads I see he seems to forget that the public road congestion gives the private road a reason for being there. So if there is no public road and a private road is constructed all users of the road will be charged. Seems fair. Hand all the public roads over the the private road concern and now all roads are private costing you a fee for each mile you drive. Not so fair.

Cal Trans does work on roads but so too do private companies. Government collects the tax money. Government hires private construction firms to build and repair the roads. Government owns the road. This seems to work. Everyone enjoys the roads and pays for their use at the pump and registration. Now if we could only keep the government from raiding the road funds we'd have no need for the private roads cause we could build more lanes. Seems reasonable.

[tallman]

Please support your statement (fraud, and the ability of a private education company to raise taxes) with factual cites.

Thanks.

 

"Private schools do very will in an environment where they can select their students and expect public schools to absorb the rest of the student population."

 

So public schools do a better job with "the rest" of them?

 

Google "Apollo Group Fraud" or "University of Phoenix Fraud".

 

Public schools aren't on a level playing field with private schools. As I tell people who favor vouchers, what makes you think the school will let your kid even with some sort of subsidy?

 

It always astounds me that people will pay tens of thousands more in private tuition, but when asked to pay more taxes to help public schools, they refuse.

 

First, that isn't "a lot".

Second, I'm talking about public schools (k-12) taken over and run by private education companies.

 

Third, I owned and ran a private school for 20 years. I understand funding and vouchers, among other aspects of "choice", fairly well.

 

In some cases people are quite willing to pay more in taxes.

Sadly, not all.

Care to address my question of how a private education company was able to levy a higher tax?

[John Ranalletta]

...the issue is when government doesn't do something well, there are no negative consequences for those involved in the decision...

 

Of course, it took the firing of a couple of directors who didn't understand that customer service was more important than doing things the way we used to do them. Daniels' staff knows there's a penalty for failure. You get fired or offered the chance to resign.

Well which is it John? In government there are or are not negative consiquences/penalty (for poor performance)?

That's a reach, Ken, but,yes, Daniels is the rare exception and stands out in stark contrast to his peers. He's a public servant who demands his staff deliver the goods or be fired. He is indeed a rare bird. Thanks for letting me point that out again.

[Antimatter]

Hmmm,the word was 'demand', not 'ability to raise'. The comment was aimed at the problems the city of Philadelphia had with a company called Edison Schools in the early part of the century. Basically, Edison charged between 1/3 & 1/2 more than per pupil than public schools, and had little to show for their prices. The stock of the company went to pennies on the dollar as a result.

 

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/education/bal-te.md.edison09sep09,1,693573.story?page=1

 

As to your question about the amount of fraud, I would have a hard time quantifying that. I must admit I find your criticism of my statement interesting when you did not ask others to quantify their statements of 'private corporations always do things better' etc.

[Ken H.]

That's a reach, Ken, but,yes, Daniels is the rare exception and stands out in stark contrast to his peers. He's a public servant who demands his staff deliver the goods or be fired. He is indeed a rare bird. Thanks for letting me point that out again.

I think there are a lot of 'Daniels' throughout government. The problem isn’t lack of accountability through the ranks, the problem is the governance system and agenda has been hijacked at the top by a (percentage wise) exceedingly small number of individuals for their own personal gain and all the rest of us, including many, many dedicated government employees; suffer for it.

[tallman]

Perhaps because, as I readily revealed, I have some experience in that area.

 

I'm familiar with Edison.

 

Regardless, change in that area is happening and I think most Districts use tax revenue and Federal $$ for funding.

Those are regulated by statutory and other legal guidelines not subject to arbitrary demands of public education corporations.

If more $$ was provided, it came from somewhere.

[Antimatter]

Ah, I see.