I mentioned this in the North Korea thread but I think it deserves a thread of its own. Sweden has a new Socialist/Green government (which relies on the Communist party), and in its wisdom it has decided to ban profit in large sectors of the economy. We are talking adults who actually think that profit is bad. Good night Sweden! This fucking country is going to hell. All over again. Kids today don't remember the straight-jacket that was Sweden in the 80s. Enjoy your pain, retards.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/06/us-sweden-politcs-welfare-idUSKCN0HV11V20141006
QuoteSwedish government strikes deal with Left to limit welfare profits
By Johan Sennero and Niklas Pollard
STOCKHOLM Mon Oct 6, 2014 11:10am EDT
(Reuters) - Sweden's government will limit the profits of private companies providing social services, it said on Monday, after striking a deal with a left-wing party to secure support for its forthcoming budget.
The minority centre-left coalition of Social Democrats and Greens agreed to demands by the Left Party to restrict the profit private firms can make in welfare and education - a key condition to get the non-government party to support the budget bill, which it will present in the coming weeks.
Decades of deregulation have opened up Sweden's healthcare, schools and nursing homes to for-profit private companies, some of them owned by private equity firms. Private industry, which accounts for around 15 percent of the sector, immediately criticised the profit cap plan, saying services would suffer.
Concerns over private involvement in traditionally public sector fields have increased in recent years. The bankruptcy of the largest chain of private schools, private equity-owned JB, led the Social Democrats to pledge to "do away with the gold rush".
"We need to put our welfare sector in order and that is what we aim to make sure happens," Social Democrat Prime Minister Stefan Lofven told a news conference.
Left Party economic spokeswoman Ulla Andersson said the new rules would mean most surpluses generated by private players in welfare would have to be reinvested in the business and profits from sales of such businesses would also be curtailed.
"Some private equity companies will probably get a hiccups today, and so they should. It will no longer be possible to enrich yourself on the Swedish welfare," she said.
Investor AB, the investment arm of Sweden's powerful Wallenberg family and owner of school firm Kunskapsskolan and care provider Aleris, defended the role of private players.
GREAT UNCERTAINTY
"The immediate impact of this is that hundreds of thousands of patients, students, parents, family members and employees now have to live in great uncertainty about what will happen to their school, health clinic or nursing home," Investor CEO Borje Ekholm told Reuters.
"A better solution would be to put quality in focus. The private players often perform better in terms of quality than the alternatives."
The new rules have yet to be defined and will not be in place until 2016 at the earliest, giving private firms more than a year's grace period.
The details to be hammered out include how to ensure adequate staffing levels as well as possible suitability tests for private welfare players.
Of the roughly 600 billion crowns ($84 billion) Sweden spent in 2012 on welfare services, around 15 percent went to private sector providers, according to official figures.
Sweden's Association of Private Care Providers said the decision on profit curbs was founded on "myths and anecdotes" and would have a direct impact on 10,000 small businesses.
"Private care givers will not dare develop their business, and employees with ideas about how to improve the operations will not dare to start their own business," Hakan Tenelius, head of business policy at the association, said in a statement.
Once the proposal is finalised, the government will present a bill to parliament but it will require support from at least one of the centre-right opposition parties to pass, leaving its future far from assured.
Anna Kinberg Batra, economic spokesperson at the Moderate Party which has long championed private players in areas such as welfare, said Lofven's bargain with the Left created "years of uncertainty" for private companies and people relying on them.
Sounds like they need the right parties to vote for it in order for it to pass :huh:
I thought in a Parliamentary system the opposition basically just sits there impotently.
When you say 'large sectors of the economy' you mean the 15% of the welfare budget? And when you say ban profits you mean that the Swedish government would rather that the tax payer money be spent on welfare rather than to make private welfare providers richer?
Or am I missing something?
Quote from: Valmy on October 07, 2014, 01:30:48 PM
Sounds like they need the right parties to vote for it in order for it to pass :huh:
I thought in a Parliamentary system the opposition basically just sits there impotently.
Depends if it's a majority or minority government.
I'm with The Brain on this one - look if they want to go after companies for not providing good enough services, or enough value for the money being spent, that's one thing. But how the hell can you legislate against profit?
Quote from: Valmy on October 07, 2014, 01:30:48 PM
Sounds like they need the right parties to vote for it in order for it to pass :huh:
I thought in a Parliamentary system the opposition basically just sits there impotently.
It's a weak government. But they don't need the right parties, they can get the non-aligned Sweden Democrats.
Quote from: Barrister on October 07, 2014, 01:33:51 PM
But how the hell can you legislate against profit?
They do it on gambling, too. In that a certain amount has to be paid back to the players and thus effectively limit profits. Here it's just a certain amount of the money has to be used on actual welfare.
QuoteThe bankruptcy of the largest chain of private schools, private equity-owned JB, led the Social Democrats to pledge to "do away with the gold rush".
:hmm:
Quote from: Liep on October 07, 2014, 01:33:24 PM
When you say 'large sectors of the economy' you mean the 15% of the welfare budget? And when you say ban profits you mean that the Swedish government would rather that the tax payer money be spent on welfare rather than to make private welfare providers richer?
Or am I missing something?
It's 600 billion crowns ($84 billion), which is quite a lot in a country like Sweden. I don't really follow the rest you say, do you think that the state shouldn't use private sector suppliers?
Quote from: The Brain on October 07, 2014, 01:37:10 PM
It's 600 billion crowns ($84 billion*.15=12.6), which is quite a lot in a country like Sweden. I don't really follow the rest you say, do you think that the state shouldn't use private sector suppliers?
I'm saying that when it does it seems prudent to demand that the money be used on welfare service rather than to aim for more profit.
Quote from: Liep on October 07, 2014, 01:43:13 PM
I'm saying that when it does it seems prudent to demand that the money be used on welfare service rather than to aim for more profit.
As Beeb pointed out already, shouldn't you care more about the level of services provided for the money spent by the government?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 07, 2014, 01:59:11 PM
Quote from: Liep on October 07, 2014, 01:43:13 PM
I'm saying that when it does it seems prudent to demand that the money be used on welfare service rather than to aim for more profit.
As Beeb pointed out already, shouldn't you care more about the level of services provided for the money spent by the government?
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?
Quote from: Liep on October 07, 2014, 02:02:33 PM
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?
But we can't know it can be done cheaper. And there are reasons to believe it can't.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 07, 2014, 01:59:11 PM
Quote from: Liep on October 07, 2014, 01:43:13 PM
I'm saying that when it does it seems prudent to demand that the money be used on welfare service rather than to aim for more profit.
As Beeb pointed out already, shouldn't you care more about the level of services provided for the money spent by the government?
Yeah... and with the bankruptcies of the private entities, it seems they're convinced that the level of service is going to be higher if the government handles it; in part because lacking a drive for profit leads to more resources going to provide the actual services.
Quote from: Liep on October 07, 2014, 02:02:33 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 07, 2014, 01:59:11 PM
Quote from: Liep on October 07, 2014, 01:43:13 PM
I'm saying that when it does it seems prudent to demand that the money be used on welfare service rather than to aim for more profit.
As Beeb pointed out already, shouldn't you care more about the level of services provided for the money spent by the government?
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?
But apparently it can't be done for cheaper. Government itself wasn't able to provide that service at that price (or if they could why would they ever have privatized it?).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 07, 2014, 02:04:52 PM
But we can't know it can be done cheaper. And there are reasons to believe it can't.
That's a fairly ideological position, and the Swedish government and its voters takes a different ideological position.
Quote from: Barrister on October 07, 2014, 02:05:47 PM
But apparently it can't be done for cheaper. Government itself wasn't able to provide that service at that price (or if they could why would they ever have privatized it?).
Why would a right-wing government privatize a public service? Perhaps for ideological reasons?
Quote from: Liep on October 07, 2014, 01:43:13 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 07, 2014, 01:37:10 PM
It's 600 billion crowns ($84 billion*.15=12.6), which is quite a lot in a country like Sweden. I don't really follow the rest you say, do you think that the state shouldn't use private sector suppliers?
I'm saying that when it does it seems prudent to demand that the money be used on welfare service rather than to aim for more profit.
It's not 15%, the whole SEK 600 billion sector is affected. It's not like profit will be fine for 5% of the sector if the private part (badadum) increases to 20%.
When the state buys roads, cars, food, etc do you think profit should be OK?
Quote from: Liep on October 07, 2014, 02:02:33 PM
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?
:huh: 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?
Quote from: Jacob on October 07, 2014, 02:06:39 PM
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.
Quote from: Jacob on October 07, 2014, 02:06:39 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 07, 2014, 02:04:52 PM
But we can't know it can be done cheaper. And there are reasons to believe it can't.
That's a fairly ideological position, and the Swedish government and its voters takes a different ideological position.
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.
Quote from: grumbler on October 07, 2014, 02:12:30 PM
Quote from: Liep on October 07, 2014, 02:02:33 PM
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?
:huh: 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?
Either that or force the contractor to pay out more in services. Which would lead to all sorts of weirdness.
Quote from: Jacob on October 07, 2014, 02:06:39 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 07, 2014, 02:04:52 PM
But we can't know it can be done cheaper. And there are reasons to believe it can't.
That's a fairly ideological position, and the Swedish government and its voters takes a different ideological position.
No it's an empirical position. For instance, Swedish school vouchers are typically 85% of government costs for a kid. If a private school can make a profit from 85% of what the government non-profit school gets, how do we know that it could be done cheaper? Rhetorical.
I didn't know Pol had a brother.
Really, people? We had to wait until page 2 for that gag?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 07, 2014, 02:21:33 PM
I didn't know Pol had a brother.
Really, people? We had to wait until page 2 for that gag?
:mellow:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 07, 2014, 02:21:33 PM
I didn't know Pol had a brother.
Really, people? We had to wait until page 2 for that gag?
I don't get it.
Quote from: Valmy on October 07, 2014, 02:13:40 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 07, 2014, 02:06:39 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 07, 2014, 02:04:52 PM
But we can't know it can be done cheaper. And there are reasons to believe it can't.
That's a fairly ideological position, and the Swedish government and its voters takes a different ideological position.
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.
Private welfare contractors are still pretty new.
Quote from: grumbler on October 07, 2014, 02:12:30 PM
Quote from: Liep on October 07, 2014, 02:02:33 PM
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?
:huh: 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.
Quote from: Liep on October 07, 2014, 02:28:18 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 07, 2014, 02:12:30 PM
Quote from: Liep on October 07, 2014, 02:02:33 PM
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?
:huh: 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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 07, 2014, 02:21:33 PM
I didn't know Pol had a brother.
Really, people? We had to wait until page 2 for that gag?
It occurred to me, but I didn't want to face Yi's stoneface.
Guys, that was the fucking joke Brain was making. :mellow:
There isn't really a person named Sven Pot. Pot is not a common Swedish surname.
You expect me to read the article when it's about Sweden? Please. :mellow:
Quote from: Liep on October 07, 2014, 02:28:18 PM
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.
"Large" is meaningless here. Certainly one wants to make sure that contractors don't steal money intended for recipients in order to pad profits, just like you don't want government workers to embezzle money intended for the recipients.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 07, 2014, 02:40:13 PM
You expect me to read the article when it's about Sweden? Please. :mellow:
:mad:
Quote from: The Brain on October 07, 2014, 02:30:31 PM
It's not clear to me why questions of quality and price couldn't be handled through normal purchasing processes.
Quality isn't always provided just because it is agreed upon in a contract. There's plenty of examples of contractors not taking workplace safety seriously or whatever because they want to maximize profits.
And when it comes to the care of the elders people tend to want more assurance that they're not just targets for more profits. So limiting what a contractor can take out of his business from profits can limit the incentive to cut corners.
Or at least I think that's the plan. If it's the best or if it will work I don't know.
Quote from: Liep on October 07, 2014, 02:47:54 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 07, 2014, 02:30:31 PM
It's not clear to me why questions of quality and price couldn't be handled through normal purchasing processes.
Quality isn't always provided just because it is agreed upon in a contract. There's plenty of examples of contractors not taking workplace safety seriously or whatever because they want to maximize profits.
And when it comes to the care of the elders people tend to want more assurance that they're not just targets for more profits. So limiting what a contractor can take out of his business from profits can limit the incentive to cut corners.
Or at least I think that's the plan. If it's the best or if it will work I don't know.
No serious organization just assumes that suppliers deliver what is in the contract. You always check that they do.
In my experience, most of the stupid things contractors do are mandated in the contract. :P
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 07, 2014, 02:52:05 PM
In my experience, most of the stupid things contractors do are mandated in the contract. :P
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.
Quote from: The Brain on October 07, 2014, 02:49:44 PM
No serious organization just assumes that suppliers deliver what is in the contract. You always check that they do.
Yes, and this is why we continually see examples of workplaces being fined for not living up to safety standards.
And no, I haven't heard of any examples of welfare receivers being neglected on a profit padding scale. But limiting incentive to have big surpluses might still make for better welfare, in Sweden's case perhaps stabilise the system to avoid more bankruptcies. Which was the point.
Quote from: Liep on October 07, 2014, 03:00:22 PM
Yes, and this is why we continually see examples of workplaces being fined for not living up to safety standards.
And no, I haven't heard of any examples of welfare receivers being neglected on a profit padding scale. But limiting incentive to have big surpluses might still make for better welfare, in Sweden's case perhaps stabilise the system to avoid more bankruptcies. Which was the point.
How will capping profits reduce bankruptcies?
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.
Why should the government care about a few bankruptcies? They can just go to different contractors right?
Quote from: Liep on October 07, 2014, 03:00:22 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 07, 2014, 02:49:44 PM
No serious organization just assumes that suppliers deliver what is in the contract. You always check that they do.
Yes, and this is why we continually see examples of workplaces being fined for not living up to safety standards.
And no, I haven't heard of any examples of welfare receivers being neglected on a profit padding scale. But limiting incentive to have big surpluses might still make for better welfare, in Sweden's case perhaps stabilise the system to avoid more bankruptcies. Which was the point.
Basically, I don't see how welfare companies are fundamentally different from other companies. If I did I could conceivably see why they should be treated in a fundamentally different way than other companies.
Quote from: derspiess on October 07, 2014, 03:04:17 PM
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 :P
In any case the Democrats are plenty Wall Street friendly.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 07, 2014, 03:03:46 PM
How will capping profits reduce bankruptcies?
Companies will be less greedy so will take fewer risks and not go bankrupt? Not sure.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 07, 2014, 03:03:46 PM
How will capping profits reduce bankruptcies?
As I read it it has become the target of speculators who think they can make big profits, but instead fail and then leaving the sector perhaps without anyone to immediately take over.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on October 07, 2014, 02:55:49 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 07, 2014, 02:52:05 PM
In my experience, most of the stupid things contractors do are mandated in the contract. :P
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 07, 2014, 02:12:43 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 07, 2014, 02:06:39 PM
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?
Quote from: Jacob on October 07, 2014, 03:18:22 PM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on October 07, 2014, 03:07:02 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 07, 2014, 03:04:17 PM
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 :P
In any case the Democrats are plenty Wall Street friendly.
I said *some* Democrats. Not all-- not even a majority. Some.
Quote from: Valmy on October 07, 2014, 02:13:40 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 07, 2014, 03:19:29 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 07, 2014, 03:18:22 PM
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?
Quote from: Jacob on October 07, 2014, 03:31:48 PM
Then that would mean the Brain was exaggerating, and how likely is that?
Did I misread? I thought the proposal was to cap profits.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 07, 2014, 03:35:54 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 07, 2014, 03:35:54 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 07, 2014, 03:31:48 PM
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.
Quote from: Jacob on October 07, 2014, 03:43:21 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 07, 2014, 03:35:54 PM
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.
Quote from: Jacob on October 07, 2014, 03:18:22 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 07, 2014, 02:12:43 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 07, 2014, 02:06:39 PM
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.
Quote from: Threviel on October 08, 2014, 12:24:27 AM
Quote from: Jacob on October 07, 2014, 03:18:22 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 07, 2014, 02:12:43 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 07, 2014, 02:06:39 PM
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?
Quote from: The Brain on October 07, 2014, 02:30:31 PM
Quote from: Liep on October 07, 2014, 02:28:18 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 07, 2014, 02:12:30 PM
Quote from: Liep on October 07, 2014, 02:02:33 PM
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?
:huh: 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
Quote from: Liep on October 07, 2014, 03:45:52 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 07, 2014, 03:35:54 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 07, 2014, 03:31:48 PM
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.
Quote from: garbon on October 08, 2014, 07:29:13 AM
It seems to me that they would just stop bothering to make surpluses.
:yes:
Incentives: they work.