Sven Pot

[CountDeMoney]

In my experience, most of the stupid things contractors do are mandated in the contract. 

This.  Ironically, half the shit that makes government contracts in the US so inefficient and wasteful is all the shit thrown into the contracts to keep them from being inefficient and wasteful.

Seeing it up close, it really is obscene.  But hey, government = bad, privatization of government  = good.

[Jacob]

That's a fairly ideological position, and the Swedish government and its voters takes a different ideological position.

Feel free to share a link, because your insight into the Swedish voter was not disclosed in the OP.

I assume that the people who voted for the governing party more or less agree with their policy direction here. I didn't realize that this would be controversial to the point that it requires special evidence.

Is your assumption that the Swedish government is suggesting getting rid of privatization in the face of opposition from its voters?

[Admiral Yi]

Is your assumption that the Swedish government is suggesting getting rid of privatization in the face of opposition from its voters?

My assumption is that the Swedish government is not suggesting getting rid of privatization.

[derspiess]

I'd imagine some Democrats would be salivating over the thought of a similar but even wider-reaching law here in the US.  Frequently we hear rhetoric to the effect that corporations make too much money.

When it stops being an actual thing and not something you are imaging we can discuss it

In any case the Democrats are plenty Wall Street friendly.

I said *some* Democrats.  Not all-- not even a majority.  Some.

[Jacob]

Yet they set up this entire very successful system on Yi's assumption and nothing so far has shown otherwise.  In fact decades of Swedish experience with the welfare state demonstrates this as well.  So are we to assume that the Swedish government and voters are idiots?  It just doesn't make any sense to shake up and destabilize a system that has proven a success for petty ideological reasons.

Reading the article it states that the largest chain of private schools went bankrupt, which doesn't quite come across as being very successful entirely.

What I'm saying is the efficacy of private vs state run key services when it comes to education and healthcare is a subject that's pretty heavily predicated on an ideological POV, and that arguments assuming one POV is accurate (such as Yi's) is not going to be persuasive on someone proceeding from the opposing one (such as Liep's). The Swedes, it seems, have voted in a government that is closer to Liep's view and is proceeding from that (namely that "state run gives more bang for the buck, since no money goes to profit").

How you get from that to calling the Swedish government and voters idiots, I'm not sure. The only one calling the Swedish government and voters idiots on this so far is, I believe, the Brain.

[Jacob]

Is your assumption that the Swedish government is suggesting getting rid of privatization in the face of opposition from its voters?

My assumption is that the Swedish government is not suggesting getting rid of privatization.

Then that would mean the Brain was exaggerating, and how likely is that?

[Admiral Yi]

Then that would mean the Brain was exaggerating, and how likely is that?

Did I misread?  I thought the proposal was to cap profits.

[Jacob]

Did I misread?  I thought the proposal was to cap profits.

No I think that's right.

I guess the Brain did exaggerate somewhat, then.

[Liep]

Then that would mean the Brain was exaggerating, and how likely is that?

Did I misread?  I thought the proposal was to cap profits.

I didn't read it as a cap, more that an amount of the profit must be re-invested in the company.

[The Brain]

Did I misread?  I thought the proposal was to cap profits.

No I think that's right.

I guess the Brain did exaggerate somewhat, then.

I don't believe in a literal Hell, no.

[Threviel]

That's a fairly ideological position, and the Swedish government and its voters takes a different ideological position.

Feel free to share a link, because your insight into the Swedish voter was not disclosed in the OP.

I assume that the people who voted for the governing party more or less agree with their policy direction here. I didn't realize that this would be controversial to the point that it requires special evidence.

Is your assumption that the Swedish government is suggesting getting rid of privatization in the face of opposition from its voters?

Since the leftist parties didn't increase their voter support significantly since the last elections I would say that it is not at all clear that the electorate want to cap profits in welfare. This was an election where the xenophobic Sverigedemokraterna stole voters from both left and right, they just stole more from the right so the left block is somewhat larger.

I believe that the only clear ideological position from the electorate was that they want to limit immigration.

[Liep]

That's a fairly ideological position, and the Swedish government and its voters takes a different ideological position.

Feel free to share a link, because your insight into the Swedish voter was not disclosed in the OP.

I assume that the people who voted for the governing party more or less agree with their policy direction here. I didn't realize that this would be controversial to the point that it requires special evidence.

Is your assumption that the Swedish government is suggesting getting rid of privatization in the face of opposition from its voters?

Since the leftist parties didn't increase their voter support significantly since the last elections I would say that it is not at all clear that the electorate want to cap profits in welfare. This was an election where the xenophobic Sverigedemokraterna stole voters from both left and right, they just stole more from the right so the left block is somewhat larger.

I believe that the only clear ideological position from the electorate was that they want to limit immigration.

How is it clearer that they want to limit immigration when the xenophobics are still a much much smaller bloc than the lefts?

[Tamas]

Sure, and I'm sure they already do. But if a welfare provider lives up to that and still comes out with a profit, isn't it waste of taxpayer money to next year pay the same when it can be done cheaper?

  So, if a government contractor makes a profit, then the government should reduce the payment next year so the provider doesn't make a profit? How does that make sense?  What provider will work for free?

I'm not saying private welfare providers shouldn't have any profits, then there'd be no private welfare providers. But if the profits are large it's sensible to look at what they provide and how they achieve this profit.

And I can understand why people want to be assured that the welfare receivers aren't shafted because some contractors want a larger profit.

It's not clear to me why questions of quality and price couldn't be handled through normal purchasing processes.

That's, like, private business dude, and letting people figure out shit for themselves. Ewwww

[garbon]

Then that would mean the Brain was exaggerating, and how likely is that?

Did I misread?  I thought the proposal was to cap profits.

I didn't read it as a cap, more that an amount of the profit must be re-invested in the company.

It seems to me that they would just stop bothering to make surpluses.

[Valmy]

It seems to me that they would just stop bothering to make surpluses.

Incentives: they work.