Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 86 of 86

Thread: Is the private sector really that efficient anyway?

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by afwjam View Post
    Think of the most successful private companies of the past 10 years.... Lets take Apple for example, I believe they are now the second largest company in the world by market cap. Why are they worth so much? How can they be making so much money? Can any private corporation, let alone a government compete? Do you think they are efficient? You think their customers are happy?
    Apple makes their customers very happy. According to apple users I've met, their customer service is top notch, and their products are (in their opinions) superior. They're worth so much because they make products that people want(which in turn makes them money). A private corporation could certainly compete-they would just have to be more innovative and provide what customers demand. Governments could never compete because of their very nature. I know that apple customers are happy because they keep buying Apple stuff year after year when they could easily switch to another OS.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    True, so long as the entrepreneurs don't (as they often do) start colluding with each other.
    Entrepreneurs often collude? Since when? It happens, but I see no evidence of it happening "often". Got some examples?
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  4. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    Entrepreneurs often collude? Since when? It happens, but I see no evidence of it happening "often". Got some examples?
    Well, you pretty much have to go back before Teddy Roosevelt to find a free enough market, but hell yes. Just about every bank and railroad of the nineteenth century did, and often as not J.P. Morgan was present at either negotiation. That said, the banks tended to stick together better than the railroads did.

    Read your history.
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    These days? That's always what has passed for conservatism.

    And exactly the same thing goes for (modern) liberalism, too.

    They just disagree about what should be forced upon whom.

  5. #64
    Difference is, I'm not forced to support inefficient endeavors in the ever diminishing private market.



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #65
    One of the major problems I have with Ron Paul, is that he always defers to the same unproven(and untrue) argument that the private sector always works better and more efficiently than the government.

    The government actually does a lot better than private sector in many areas that belong to the public domain such as the fire control, police, roads and prisons.

  8. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam I am View Post
    The government actually does a lot better than private sector in many areas that belong to the public domain such as the fire control, police, roads and prisons.
    You can believe these things and still have no problem with Ron Paul. All you have to do is believe local government does this much better without federal interference, and remember that both U.S. Represenative and U.S. President are federal offices. Just that simple.
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    These days? That's always what has passed for conservatism.

    And exactly the same thing goes for (modern) liberalism, too.

    They just disagree about what should be forced upon whom.

  9. #67
    Some would argue that volunteer fire departments are far more efficient taking into account resources. Private security has also been shown to be very effective. I would argue that the whole prison system needs to be eliminated. Imagine if Apple ran a network of toll roads around the US.... I would pay a hefty privilege to drive on Apple's roads, they would be faster, safer and cleaner.

  10. #68
    I actually want the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority taken over by the Bondurant School. That would be good.
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    These days? That's always what has passed for conservatism.

    And exactly the same thing goes for (modern) liberalism, too.

    They just disagree about what should be forced upon whom.

  11. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam I am View Post
    One of the major problems I have with Ron Paul, is that he always defers to the same unproven(and untrue) argument that the private sector always works better and more efficiently than the government.

    The government actually does a lot better than private sector in many areas that belong to the public domain such as the fire control, police, roads and prisons.
    That point is debatable (and there's much literature that demonstrates the opposite of your claim, such as Block's book on roads), so it's not wise to say so.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  12. #70
    Yeah, There's literature for and against everything

    http://cdn.publicinterestnetwork.org...blic-Costs.pdf

  13. #71
    If you want to privatize security, you might want to study up on the Chicago of the 20s or feudal Japan. The major providers of this "security" WILL NOT be as close to the law as the public police will. Your own provider of security hold a certain sway over you that no organization should hold other.

    And if you thought that police didn't respect your rights before wait until they privatize all police. The private "police" whom are not those who you've hired will not care at all.



    Imagine your town if all roads were privately made and owned. Would they all be there? would the road that goes by your house and every other person's house even be there? Would you have to pay multiple tolls on your way to work? Do you like to be able to walk across public land that you have the freedom to travel across?

  14. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam I am View Post
    If you want to privatize security, you might want to study up on the Chicago of the 20s or feudal Japan. The major providers of this "security" WILL NOT be as close to the law as the public police will. Your own provider of security hold a certain sway over you that no organization should hold other.

    And if you thought that police didn't respect your rights before wait until they privatize all police. The private "police" whom are not those who you've hired will not care at all.



    Imagine your town if all roads were privately made and owned. Would they all be there? would the road that goes by your house and every other person's house even be there? Would you have to pay multiple tolls on your way to work? Do you like to be able to walk across public land that you have the freedom to travel across?
    Intentionally naive or what? You provide chicago in the 20's as an example of privatized security but do you have any idea how much political corruption there was in chicago which led to the gangs cooperating with police? it was anything but some libertarian experiment.

    here's some assigned reading, for starters, look up the "not so wild west" by Terry L. Anderson and P. J. Hill for an example of how private security actually does work.



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam I am View Post
    If you want to privatize security, you might want to study up on the Chicago of the 20s or feudal Japan. The major providers of this "security" WILL NOT be as close to the law as the public police will. Your own provider of security hold a certain sway over you that no organization should hold other.

    And if you thought that police didn't respect your rights before wait until they privatize all police. The private "police" whom are not those who you've hired will not care at all.



    Imagine your town if all roads were privately made and owned. Would they all be there? would the road that goes by your house and every other person's house even be there? Would you have to pay multiple tolls on your way to work? Do you like to be able to walk across public land that you have the freedom to travel across?
    There's a difference between security and police. Police are not security, and are unnecessary (not to mention unconstitutional, if you believe in the constitution). Security is handled just fine without them. ETA: Did you know that US courts at all levels have ruled that the cops have no legal obligation to protect you?
    Last edited by heavenlyboy34; 07-09-2011 at 10:25 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  17. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfly View Post
    Intentionally naive or what? You provide chicago in the 20's as an example of privatized security but do you have any idea how much political corruption there was in chicago which led to the gangs cooperating with police? it was anything but some libertarian experiment.

    here's some assigned reading, for starters, look up the "not so wild west" by Terry L. Anderson and P. J. Hill for an example of how private security actually does work.
    this^^ Also, our forum-mate Brooklyn Red Leg is in the private security business and can talk about it from first hand experience, FWIW.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  18. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    Entrepreneurs often collude? Since when? It happens, but I see no evidence of it happening "often". Got some examples?
    Who is to say what an Entrepreneur is? The wireless companies were enterprising companies when they were first forged from the breakup of AT&T, now their prices are generally a product of collusion. The infrastructure they use was built on the backs of the taxpayer, and our just reward is a system of $40 text message plans!!!? Where is the outrage in this... do you have any idea how much it costs them to allow you to send texts? The only step left in this world is to start charging us to breathe, because Thor knows we can't communicate without spending money -- we already can't eat, $#@!, drink, sit, $#@!, without the ALMIGHTY dollar. CHARGE MONEY FOR AIR!

    Brilliant, I figured out where I'm investing soon... air futures.

    "The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment."

    -Bertrand Russell


    I received positive rep for extreme sarcasm from a person who thought I was serious ... please look up Poe's Law

  19. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam I am View Post
    If you want to privatize security, you might want to study up on the Chicago of the 20s or feudal Japan. The major providers of this "security" WILL NOT be as close to the law as the public police will. Your own provider of security hold a certain sway over you that no organization should hold other.

    And if you thought that police didn't respect your rights before wait until they privatize all police. The private "police" whom are not those who you've hired will not care at all.



    Imagine your town if all roads were privately made and owned. Would they all be there? would the road that goes by your house and every other person's house even be there? Would you have to pay multiple tolls on your way to work? Do you like to be able to walk across public land that you have the freedom to travel across?
    That is bs. How about we look at real cases of privatization. Argentina can not provide government services anymore because they are a defunct government. So people now pay for their own security there. You don't see any feudal lords springing up there or people becoming slaves to the security services they hire.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cowlesy View Post
    Americans in general are jedi masters of blaming every other person.

  20. #77
    I'm only 25 and had spent a fair chunk of my adult life going to school and not working. However once I had landed my first job (even though it was retail just to have something at the time), I noticed that the incompetent workers tend to be the ones that are replaced. It may seem like the managers or higher ups are completely incompetent yet still keeping their jobs. The ones I have seen have been demoted/fired/or moved around to other locations while those that worked hard got promotions.

  21. #78
    Well if a government run industry (which it will usualy have a monopoly on) makes a mistake, everybody is screwed. But if a private enterprise makes a mistake, less people are screwed.

  22. #79
    lol did that dude refer to Chicago in the 20's? Really? During PROHIBITION?

    lolololololol

  23. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by Gaddafi Duck View Post
    I don't think it really is as efficient as many try to make it out to be. Mind you I'm not very far in my professional life, but all of the jobs/internships I have had circle around politics rather than productivity. I can't tell you how more often than not incompetent people are in charge of vital functions in private companies---this point is especially true the larger the company is compared to smaller scale operations. Most businesses claim to have Policy A engrained in their mission statements and is carried out in day-to-day work, but in reality, it's all fluff. I've had jobs where the average time to get hired took up to 2 months for entry level positions and required 3 rounds of interviews, while temps were hired instantly from temp agencies. I've had to speak with several individuals regarding compensation (of which none gave satisfactory explanations), to where I had to go to the person ahead of the payroll department and they couldn't even answer a basic question.

    Back in the Summer of 2010, I noticed an employee would be absent from work up to 4 hours at a time (many times without clocking out) to watch FIFA World Cup soccer. How did he get away with it? He was Iranian and the "head" guy was Iranian as well--yet others who worked far harder and yielded a better output were fired as if their contributions were trivial.

    I've worked for Union Pacific and had to present market analysis to senior management. I witnessed great ideas (not necessarily from my own proposals) be heavily criticized while others, which were not very thoroughly argued on the part of the employee, won out because they were more "aligned" with what managers were going with. It's as if "rocking the boat" was not something they were interested in--like, say, pointing out the economic problems facing the US market to where resources would be better invested elsewhere.

    Now, the free market viewpoint claims that if employers fire the efficient workers for the sake of politics/sexism/racism/whatever, then those companies will lose market share to companies that don't conduct such practices. The truth is, I find so many inefficiencies in every company I have worked for to the point of annoyance, and the fact is pervasive among all companies at least in my experience.

    It seems the free market viewpoint is unsatisfactory in explaining and defending the idea that it is efficient. It's certainly more efficient than the alternatives out there, like state-run institutions where politics is heralded as the centerpiece of all business transactions, but the subtle yet blatant installment of politics in private companies appears to create a considerable amount of waste. I just wonder how much is left on the table day-to-day due to this.
    There's no way to eliminate that kind of thing. But the free market has a way of punishing those inefficiencies and rewarding companies that avoid them.

    Also, understand that the environment you're applying for these jobs in is not really a free market. There are all kinds of bailouts, regulations, and other things that motivate companies to devote their energies to political ends rather than economic ones.

    Free market economists have always been very blunt about the anti-free market tendencies of business owners, and their constant pursuit of special treatment by the state. Being a "capitalist" does not always entail being for free markets.



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    we could abolish the federal register
    rofl
    Last edited by RideTheDirt; 08-01-2011 at 02:24 PM.

  26. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by Kade View Post

    Brilliant, I figured out where I'm investing soon... air futures.
    I think they are called "carbon credits"

    great post btw

  27. #83
    The profit motive in a free market is no different than the "invisible hand" in free trade. It is greed. To say a republic should build its economy around "the profit motive" is completely incompetent and provides little for a future.

    How efficient is a market that underwrites trillions in CDO, MBS, and all kinds of other sickening derived financial instruments? But then again, I see so many people figure out, and type out, the math thats involved in fractional reserve lending, then deeming it insane.....so humor me...why don't the lot of you all draw out the calculus for a derivative and explain to everyone here on RPF how its a "good, profit motivating" and furthermore, sane.
    Last edited by -C-; 08-01-2011 at 02:33 PM.

  28. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by -C- View Post
    How efficient is a market that underwrites trillions in CDO, MBS, and all kinds of other sickening derived financial instruments? But then again, I see so many people figure out, and type out, the math thats involved in fractional reserve lending, then deeming it insane.....so humor me...why don't the lot of you all draw out the calculus for a derivative and explain to everyone here on RPF how its a "good, profit motivating" and furthermore, sane.
    You apparently have severe reading comprehension disability.

    No one on here will ever argue that all products are good.
    No one on here will ever argue that all products are sold in good faith.

    There exists a court system and a system of law to enforce violations of rights and contracts. If you have a problem with a product provided by the private sector, or you think you or someone else is being defrauded, please, by all means, speak up, in an appropriate forum.

    To address your point about fractional reserve banking:
    Fractional reserve banking wouldn't be a problem if the government didn't outlaw competing currencies.

  29. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by BrendenR View Post
    To address your point about fractional reserve banking:
    Fractional reserve banking wouldn't be a problem if the government didn't outlaw competing currencies.
    Or underwrite a lender of last resort.

  30. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by -C- View Post
    The profit motive in a free market is no different than the "invisible hand" in free trade. It is greed. To say a republic should build its economy around "the profit motive" is completely incompetent and provides little for a future.
    I disagree. Greed can indeed be very dangerous but can also prove to be an excellent motivator. It is the only just basis for an economy, and also the most efficient.

    I get up and go to work because I want to make money. When work sucks I can think about what I will buy with my money or what I will do with it. I already feel that taxes consume an inordinate amount of my income. If I continue to owe the government a greater and greater percentage of money, I experience a diminishing margin of return for the hours I work. At some point I may reasonably conclude that it would be wiser not to work, or at least not to work without retaining what I earn. In fact, millions of people have already made this decision. I have spoken to many people who could and would work, but have decided that it is easier to collect unemployment or social security checks. Entitlement handouts encourage and reward laziness, while punishing those with the desire to work hard. This is not only greedy but parasitic, and is one of our nation's largest injustices.

    I think part of the problem comes with defining the word "greed." Is it wrong to wish to keep what one has earned? It is greedy to expect that others will not take from you what is by all rights yours? I believe it is not. I would associate the word greedy with a person, who, having the ability to share with others, does not do so while continuing to indulge all his own pursuits. This is indeed not very empathetic, and according to many faiths, morally wrong. But ethics and religion also enjoin against covetness and theft. Is this not what is happening when money is taken forcibly by taxes? And while it is right to give freely and selflessly from one's own pockets, where is the generosity or purity in demanding that another surrender his money or be imprisoned?

    To base one's economy on anything other than the invisible hand and strong property rights is to invite chaos and tyranny. I would call this justice rather than greed, but that's semantics. The point is, the most efficient society will be a voluntary one. Each man may put in no more than he desires and will expect no one to provide him with a safety net. This will be the most efficient method for at least three reasons:

    1) It is the most simple. There are two political states which are by nature the simplest: each man governs himself, or one man governs all. In fact, the latter is more complex than the first as it involves the dissemination of law as well as its regulation. The more government there is (men, laws, statutes, policies, positions, etc.) the more time, effort, and resources must be diverted into sustaining the procedural part. These are resources that could be used elsewhere where they not required by the system.

    2) As a general rule, each person is liable to act spend more responsibly and efficiently their own money rather than someone else's. We are motivated to do this by the personal investment in our own belongings. We have worked for them; they represent the fruits our time and labor, and we know that to acquire more will require us to do more work. People spending others' money, especially when they know they can always get more, are far less likely to use the money efficiently. Furthermore, they may even be inclined to pursue a different goal altogether - one of self advancement.

    3) Forced, coordinated action is automatically less dynamic and fluid that free and voluntary associations. In a true free market, good ideas can replace poor ones quickly with a minimal loss to all involved. When anything is dictated from a large central source to countless numbers of people, new ideas stagnate and creativity is stifled. Those in charge have more incentive to pursue short term crowd pleasing shows than real long term progress, which may involve difficult sacrifices.

    Quote Originally Posted by -C- View Post
    How efficient is a market that underwrites trillions in CDO, MBS, and all kinds of other sickening derived financial instruments? But then again, I see so many people figure out, and type out, the math thats involved in fractional reserve lending, then deeming it insane.....so humor me...why don't the lot of you all draw out the calculus for a derivative and explain to everyone here on RPF how its a "good, profit motivating" and furthermore, sane.
    Not very efficient at all. That's why the Federal Reserve shouldn't be running monetary policy and Congress shouldn't be allowed to spend money on anything not expressly mentioned in Article 1 Section 8. I feel like those two steps would go a long long way towards solving our economic troubles. So would competing currencies as Brendon mentioned.
    "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." – John Stuart Mill

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-06-2013, 03:28 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-19-2011, 11:26 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-31-2010, 08:12 AM
  4. Which one has held a private sector job?
    By DirtMcGirt in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-09-2009, 01:34 AM
  5. Government Job vs. Private Sector Jobs
    By Objectivist in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-08-2009, 07:29 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •