Social Democrats in the Wilderness

[Razgovory]

There are some things that government simply does better then private actors because there are some things that will never be profitable or perhaps better put, should never be profitable.  For example prisons, the military, many infrastructure and transportation projects.

Why should running a prison never be profitable?

Because the State should not be paying the premium to make it profitable.  It should just be run at cost.

Understanding that "cost" is higher in a government-run system than a privately-run system, given that the latter has incentive to reduce costs and the former does not?

I think the choice isn't between what shouldn't be run without profit and what should be, it is between efficiency and risk.  Government should run things for which efficiency is not as important as reliability.  Monopolistic enterprises such as most public transportation systems are an obvious example.  Prisons may be less so.

Why do you assume the former doesn't have an incentive to reduce costs?

[grumbler]

That is the normal assumption but as we have found out here that is not always the case.  This is one of the criticisms I have for the privitisation crowd.  They work from the assumption that the private sector can always do things for less cost but with the same outcomes or value.  For some things that is true.  For others it is not.

But your assumption that "cost is what is is" for prisons is true because...?

It is ironic to see you criticizing "the privatization crowd" by erecting a strawman that is the exact reverse of your own unsupported (and arguably unsupportable) assertion! 

Again you are making the assumption that private actors will always be more efficient.

Again, no, I am not.  Private actors are generally more efficient, because they have incentives to be, but that isn't always true.  You saying that i am making an assumption also doesn't make it true.

I realize that a strong cultural truism in the US but it is not our experience here.  The thing about private actors in a non-government related field is that the most inefficient businesses simply fail.  But when private actors are being funded and subsidized by government that does not occur.  The opposite can occur.  The private actor simply adapts to find ways to get as much out of the government as possible to increase its profitability.

Private actors being funded/subsidized by the government maximize the efficiency by which they get money from the government.  Your experience is exactly what someone would expect from the "cultural truism" called economics. 

This is one of the reasons I think Obama's health care strategy is bound to fail.  I dont understand all the details but generally he seems to be trying to keep a private structure which is now going to be funded largely from tax dollars.

There are many reasons why many elements of the new health care proposal will likely fail.  The publicly-funded private structure (with no government watchdog to check how the money is spent) is one of them, but not the biggest one (Medicare has generally been satisfactory in the US).  The biggest one is that the bill is trying to repeal a law of economics by not really mandating coverage but banning discrimination in accepting clients based on pre-existing conditions.  Many people will be able to get by with little to no coverage until they become ill and then will sign up for health care.  This is called a Recipe For Disaster.

There are ways of getting where the US wants to be using a private health care system, and ways to get there using a public health care system.  there are even ways to get there with a system that combines the two.

The Congress and US President decided to pursue none of those.  The No Emperors' Clothes Left Behind health care system will require an overhaul within seconds of being passed.

[grumbler]

Why do you assume the former doesn't have an incentive to reduce costs?

Experience and logic lead one to that conclusion.

[Razgovory]

A common misconception but not necessarily a true one.

[The Brain]

Except that the cost isn't "what it is".

Yes it is.  You are simply making the same assumption that Grumbler makes that private actors can always reduce cost.  That is too simplistic.  I agree that sometimes they can but not always and the question has to be asked for each venture and not merely assumed.

I see.

[grumbler]

A common misconception but not necessarily a true one.

Okay.

[Martinus]

See, this thread illustrated my point I made in the other thread: I tried making a reasonable, balanced post without references to homosexuality and it got completely ignored.

Had I instead called for the death of all Christians and Muslims, and advocated mandatory gay sex, I would have got some reaction.

[Syt]

All prisons should be abolished because they promote gay sex.

[crazy canuck]

It is ironic to see you criticizing "the privatization crowd" by erecting a strawman that is the exact reverse of your own unsupported (and arguably unsupportable) assertion! 

No strawman here. I was dealing with your express statement.

Understanding that "cost" is higher in a government-run system than a privately-run system, given that the latter has incentive to reduce costs and the former does not?

Very dogmatic of you.

[Martinus]

Because the State should not be paying the premium to make it profitable.  It should just be run at cost.

Understanding that "cost" is higher in a government-run system than a privately-run system, given that the latter has incentive to reduce costs and the former does not?

I think the choice isn't between what shouldn't be run without profit and what should be, it is between efficiency and risk.  Government should run things for which efficiency is not as important as reliability.  Monopolistic enterprises such as most public transportation systems are an obvious example.  Prisons may be less so.
[/quote]

I think prisons are an obvious risk, much more so than public services you mention. The 'reliability' there simply concerns ensuring that individuals' human rights are not trampled, and not that trains run of time - something arguably much more important.

[grumbler]

No strawman here. I was dealing with your express statement.

Understanding that "cost" is higher in a government-run system than a privately-run system, given that the latter has incentive to reduce costs and the former does not?

Very dogmatic of you.

Seriously.

You are accusing me of asking a dogmatic question?

Seriously?  You are doing that? 

I am gonna stop, and just let you answer that. I deleted the rest of the post, so as to give you room to retreat before you are routed.

[grumbler]

I think prisons are an obvious risk, much more so than public services you mention. The 'reliability' there simply concerns ensuring that individuals' human rights are not trampled, and not that trains run of time - something arguably much more important.

Agree 100%, but note simply that this isn't as "obvious" (which was my point).

You don't run prisons as public institutions because you think the cost of running any prison is the same no matter who is running it or what their incentives push them to do.  You run prisons as public institutions because you want the employees to be as accountable as possible to the public.  Prison officials who are spending time watching costs too closely can miss the fact that they are there to protect society from the felons, protect the felons from each other, and rehabilitate insofar as possible.  It is a different mindset.

[BuddhaRhubarb]

I think it is interesting how in the West "moral conservatism" seems to be going hand in hand with free market capitalism, while I don't think it has a bigger enemy and a destructive force. Free market capitalism destroys all competing ideologies - and "moral values" are the most vulnerable to its charm. The alleged erosion of family, glamourisation of free sex and drugs lifestyle, etc. - these are all direct consequences of these things selling well and free market capitalism offering the fix.

This is just what I was thinking reading this thread. sometimes we are in sync marti.

[BuddhaRhubarb]

See, this thread illustrated my point I made in the other thread: I tried making a reasonable, balanced post without references to homosexuality and it got completely ignored.

Had I instead called for the death of all Christians and Muslims, and advocated mandatory gay sex, I would have got some reaction.

I didn't ignore your posts marti. They were some of the better spins and helped me to understand the thread better. I realized awhile ago that often people don't quote you or respond to you if they don't want to argue with you (and by you I mean me or the general "you")  The best way to get argument or attention at languish is to drop those bombs you mention mart. I prefer your posts in this thread to any other I've read recently. KUTGW

[Eddie Teach]

No strawman here. I was dealing with your express statement.

Understanding that "cost" is higher in a government-run system than a privately-run system, given that the latter has incentive to reduce costs and the former does not?

Very dogmatic of you.

Seriously.

You are accusing me of asking a dogmatic question?

Seriously?  You are doing that? 

I am gonna stop, and just let you answer that. I deleted the rest of the post, so as to give you room to retreat before you are routed.

That quote is a statement, question mark or not, Mr. Beck.