Paul Buchheit is either severely misinformed or a globalist hack

Reflection

A Disturbance in the Force
I have been reading sott articles for many years and I hold a subscription to the dot connector magazine. I love your take on paranormal and the accompanying theories on how it effects our waking world. 99% of the time I am impressed with the articles presented here.

That being said I am severely dissapointed in the latest article by Paul Buchheit: Five Ways Privatization Degrades American Life. This is a giant bag of crap sprinkled with globalist elite propaganda. There are 3 types of people in this world who hate privatization. 1) The un-educated/under-educated 2) Misinformed/brainwashed 3) Globalist elite and their minions. Nearly every single thing wrong with our economy is traceable to govt involvement in the marketplace and banking/financial sector. Remember a famous Rothschild who said, "Give me control over a nations currency and I care not who makes its laws". These people use the money to control govt, then use the govt to control us and especially our markets.


Complete and utter garbage!
By: Reflection

This article is horrible!!!!!! Govt involvement does NOTHING but raise costs and prices. Have you ever heard the saying, 'Good 'nuff for govt work'? There is a reason for that. When govt gets involved in the private sector, the large businesses get in bed with govt all raise their prices. Why? Because govt is picking up the bill, so they know they can. If govt is so great in the marketplace why in the hell is student loan debt so high? I mean by this article's twisted logic student loans should be getting smaller, but that isn't the case now is it? All you have to do is look at what happened to the housing market to see how bad govt involvement in the private sector is, that speaks for itself.

What about health care? Why are those costs rising thru the roof? I mean govt is involved neck deep in health care, shouldn't prices be dropping? This is probably the worst article I have ever seen on this site in YEARS of daily headline checking.

I don't have time to point out all of the socialist/communist bullshit flaws of this, but I'll give some examples. Electronics: No govt involvement, prices consistently drop. DVD players used to cost nearly $100 when they 1st came out. Now you can get one for about $30. Lazer eye surgery: Medicare does not cover this, insurance does not cover it, almost no govt involvement. When it 1st came out it was $3000 per eye, now it's down to $1500 for both eyes.

Bottomline: When markets are left alone it causes competition to generate sales. Competition in turn drives prices down as businesses compete for your money. It forces companies to come up with perks and extras to out-do each other, which only benefits the consumer. When govt gets involved they create govt sponsored monopolies who charge whatever they want, why? Because the taxpayer is going to get stuck with the bill.
 

Mr. Premise

The Living Force
Well I'm against privatization and I'm not undereducated and I hope I'm not misinformed/brainwashed and I'm not a globalist elite or one of their minions I don't think. What's wrong with "reasonable people can disagree?"

How would you feel if someone who is against privatization made a list like that for those who support it?

The way I see it is that privatization takes public functions and hands them over to psychopathic corporations who can't have the public interest at heart. In fact it would be counter to a corporation's charter to put the public interest above shareholder profits.
 

whitecoast

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I think one point that you're missing, Reflection, is that there's a distinction between something starting out private and remaining private (electronics, for example), and something starting communal and then being auctioned off to the benefit of those same private interests that control the government. Psychopaths employ whatever rationalizations for more or less government as necessary to favor a particular elite group of individuals. From this perspective, privatization is not universally beneficial, any more or less than government is. It all depends on context.
 

truth seeker

The Living Force
Hi Reflection,

I understand you're upset about the article and appreciate that you've decided to engage in further discussion here. With that said, it would be great if in your replies from now on, you could take care to use language that is a bit more respectful (as in usage of the word bs).

Also, I'd like to invite you to post an intro in the newbies section of the forum. It doesn't have to be long, just whatever you feel comfortable sharing. :)
 

SoCurious

Jedi Master
Hi Reflection,

It might be a good idea to bear in mind that government have no stockholders or shareholders to pay and they don't need to make a profit. They could in theory pay higher wages and still be cheaper than private enterprise. The fact that we don't see it is because politicians are just as crooked as business people and work for their own enrichment. This is our fault for not holding politicians accountable.
 

Third_Density_Resident

Jedi Council Member
In Australia every thing that's been privatized has become much more expensive with much poorer service. Two excellent examples are the telecommunications and energy companies. Before these industries were privatized, phone service was much better, phone bills were much cheaper, and the government-controlled power company was much better with much lower bills!

So from my own experience, privatization is the worst outcome possible in nearly all cases.
 

Reflection

A Disturbance in the Force
Here's my follow up. Sorry if a swear word leaks out here and there, I mean no offense. But this is a topic I'm most passionate about. It really saddens me to see people fall into the socialist trap. I understand people find it an attractive bedfellow, I just don't see how anyone can look at the level of psychopathy and insanity in govt and turn around expecting that same govt entity to provide you with any fair service.

We all understand govt is corrupt, self serving and beholden to banksters. Think about that when expecting them to regulate the people who put them in office. My post is all I'll say on it, I'll leave you all in peace after this.



my friend in Europe

America is not europe. What works there doesn't copy and paste here. Our govt is waaaaaaay more dysfunctional and corrupt than damn near anywhere on earth. They are completely beholden to banking/financiers. If that changes we can talk about govt involvement but right now it's catastrophic.That's not to say europe doesn't have its own problems, as they blend their finances your starting to see the same problems arise there and all those govt sponsored perks their so used to are now on the chopping block.

the VA system, has lower costs and overhead than other plans


It is the United States government’s second largest department, after the United States Department of Defense.[1] With a total 2009 budget of about $87.6 billion. That is unsustainable. As it becomes more apparent that the US will default on its debt, the budget will be chopped and the VA along with social security and medicare will be on the line. The police state will be the last thing left they will fund. Massive govt programs are unsustainable and far better managed by the private sector. At one time health care costs were manageable and low, before the bankster run govt ruined it. Hell, you can't even put the health benefits of food on the package because the great managers at the FDA say it has to be licensed as a drug then.

You want to know why electronics drop in price? COMPETITION

Exactly. And if hospitals had to compete for your business, you'd hear things like; We're the safest hospital in town or We have the lowest rates for xrays in the county. That only benefits the consumer. Instead doctors and hospitals set their rates based on what medicare and medicaid bureaucrats say things are worth. No one undercuts it. Zero competition. In fact they usually charge more than what medicare pays so you have to have a supplemental insurance.

key industries that we rely on are given perks

Yeah, given perks by a corrupt self serving govt. A govt that you want to run your health care. Please govt, in between bombing some brown person in the middle east, tasering an elderly women here at home and running guns to drug cartels could you take time out to decide if my appendix needs removed? How bout they just give me my damn tax money and I'll pay for my own health care. But the unconstitutional IRS is another subject I suppose.

You want to know why lasik dropped in price? It's OPTIONAL and health care doesn't cover it, so people have to pay out of pocket... so as more doctors do it, there is more COMPETITION.


So by that logic more and more doctors are doing xrays these days, why doesn't that drop in price? More emergency rooms are giving stitches, shouldn't that price go down? No, all those things are covered by medicare, medicaid and govt regulated insurance so the price does nothing but increase.

I think capitalism works

Honestly, we don't even know what that is anymore. We have had a central banking cartel monopoly running things for so long there is hardly any real capitalism left. But that sure doesn't stop people from blaming it, all the while goerge soros smiles with glee.

MUNICIPALLY OWNED

Long as it's not the feds running it, it can have some chances at success. But as soon as some wealthy globalist sees a profit, he will use the power of lobbying govt to bend the municipality to his will and ruin what the people have enjoyed as a fair business. As sure as the sun will rise, it will happen eventually in this climate of corruption.

What would you rather see


I would rather see free market capitalism where consumer chioce and competition run the show, every show. I would like to see a ZERO income tax rate so small businesses and middle class people can prosper. I would like to see competing currencies so my income is not exposed by the federal reserve printing money out of thin air devaluing my assets and risking the entire global economy in the process.

Do you know of a time when a private company took over a government service

Do you know of a time when there was almost no govt services? Every single service the govt provides was done by private industry for in many cases hundreds of years. That does not mean GE, BoA, Citi, Monsanto or Goldmen Sachs. Megalithic companies are not private individuals, they are faces on the same govt coin. If you have a private company doing a job for you, they know if they don't do it right they will be fired. The govt will just have you elect a new boss, the same as the old boss and nothing changes course. (Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama)

private industry also gets tons of CORPORATE WELFARE aka, subsidies

No, monsanto and exxon's federal subsidies are not examples of private industy. If you think those types of business are sept entities from the fed govt I got some ocean front property to sell you somewhere dry...
 

whitecoast

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Reflection said:
Here's my follow up. Sorry if a swear word leaks out here and there, I mean no offense. But this is a topic I'm most passionate about. It really saddens me to see people fall into the socialist trap. I understand people find it an attractive bedfellow, I just don't see how anyone can look at the level of psychopathy and insanity in govt and turn around expecting that same govt entity to provide you with any fair service.

We all understand govt is corrupt, self serving and beholden to banksters. Think about that when expecting them to regulate the people who put them in office. My post is all I'll say on it, I'll leave you all in peace after this.

my friend in Europe

America is not europe. What works there doesn't copy and paste here. Our govt is waaaaaaay more dysfunctional and corrupt than damn near anywhere on earth. They are completely beholden to banking/financiers. If that changes we can talk about govt involvement but right now it's catastrophic.That's not to say europe doesn't have its own problems, as they blend their finances your starting to see the same problems arise there and all those govt sponsored perks their so used to are now on the chopping block.

the VA system, has lower costs and overhead than other plans


It is the United States government’s second largest department, after the United States Department of Defense.[1] With a total 2009 budget of about $87.6 billion. That is unsustainable. As it becomes more apparent that the US will default on its debt, the budget will be chopped and the VA along with social security and medicare will be on the line. The police state will be the last thing left they will fund. Massive govt programs are unsustainable and far better managed by the private sector. At one time health care costs were manageable and low, before the bankster run govt ruined it. Hell, you can't even put the health benefits of food on the package because the great managers at the FDA say it has to be licensed as a drug then.

You want to know why electronics drop in price? COMPETITION

Exactly. And if hospitals had to compete for your business, you'd hear things like; We're the safest hospital in town or We have the lowest rates for xrays in the county. That only benefits the consumer. Instead doctors and hospitals set their rates based on what medicare and medicaid bureaucrats say things are worth. No one undercuts it. Zero competition. In fact they usually charge more than what medicare pays so you have to have a supplemental insurance.

key industries that we rely on are given perks

Yeah, given perks by a corrupt self serving govt. A govt that you want to run your health care. Please govt, in between bombing some brown person in the middle east, tasering an elderly women here at home and running guns to drug cartels could you take time out to decide if my appendix needs removed? How bout they just give me my damn tax money and I'll pay for my own health care. But the unconstitutional IRS is another subject I suppose.

You want to know why lasik dropped in price? It's OPTIONAL and health care doesn't cover it, so people have to pay out of pocket... so as more doctors do it, there is more COMPETITION.


So by that logic more and more doctors are doing xrays these days, why doesn't that drop in price? More emergency rooms are giving stitches, shouldn't that price go down? No, all those things are covered by medicare, medicaid and govt regulated insurance so the price does nothing but increase.

I think capitalism works

Honestly, we don't even know what that is anymore. We have had a central banking cartel monopoly running things for so long there is hardly any real capitalism left. But that sure doesn't stop people from blaming it, all the while goerge soros smiles with glee.

MUNICIPALLY OWNED

Long as it's not the feds running it, it can have some chances at success. But as soon as some wealthy globalist sees a profit, he will use the power of lobbying govt to bend the municipality to his will and ruin what the people have enjoyed as a fair business. As sure as the sun will rise, it will happen eventually in this climate of corruption.

What would you rather see


I would rather see free market capitalism where consumer chioce and competition run the show, every show. I would like to see a ZERO income tax rate so small businesses and middle class people can prosper. I would like to see competing currencies so my income is not exposed by the federal reserve printing money out of thin air devaluing my assets and risking the entire global economy in the process.

Do you know of a time when a private company took over a government service

Do you know of a time when there was almost no govt services? Every single service the govt provides was done by private industry for in many cases hundreds of years. That does not mean GE, BoA, Citi, Monsanto or Goldmen Sachs. Megalithic companies are not private individuals, they are faces on the same govt coin. If you have a private company doing a job for you, they know if they don't do it right they will be fired. The govt will just have you elect a new boss, the same as the old boss and nothing changes course. (Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama)

private industry also gets tons of CORPORATE WELFARE aka, subsidies

No, monsanto and exxon's federal subsidies are not examples of private industy. If you think those types of business are sept entities from the fed govt I got some ocean front property to sell you somewhere dry...

The bulk of this wasn't even addressed to anyone here, but the bloke on the SOTT page's comments. Why are you posting this here?

I'm a libertarian myself, but the root of the world's problems are not political. They are bio-psychological, and this is what the forum here attempts to address the most. If you're searching for political kerfuffles to showcase your ideology (correct or no), you're going to have to find a different forum.
 

webglider

Dagobah Resident
quote by Reflection:

Nearly every single thing wrong with our economy is traceable to govt involvement in the marketplace and banking/financial sector. Remember a famous Rothschild who said, "Give me control over a nations currency and I care not who makes its laws". These people use the money to control govt, then use the govt to control us and especially our markets.

Reflection, are you aware of The Glass Steagal-Act? This was an Act that was repealed under the Clinton administration and which caused the banking crisis that we're experiencing today. It was because government WAS NOT INVOLVED in regulating the banks that they failed.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/demise.html

I don't know how long it's been since civics was taught in the United States. I doubt if it were taught to you. If it still were, you would never have written the comment you posted above. And if it were, the U.S. and the world would not be in the mess it's in now.


What does a civics course consist of:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/The_American_School/The_Role_of_Education_in_a_Democratic_Society

Essential Components of a Civic Education:An effective democracy requires a citizenry with a civic education. The public schools were founded in part to create an informed citizenry through a curriculum that formally promotes common knowledge, skills and dispositions allowing for authentic engagement in the business of a democracy. The civic knowledge and participation necessary for a democracy are not inherently passed down from generation to generation – “they require that each generation of students learn civic facts, explore democratic ideals and connect such concepts to the responsibility of citizenship” (NACE, 2006, 1). There is widespread agreement in the United States of America that “good citizenship” contributes to a better democracy which, in turn, contributes to a stable society of opportunity and justice (Isaac, 1992). Practicing civics, becoming a skilled citizen, using one’s skills to overcome apathy, ignorance, greed or abuses of power in society at all levels requires knowledge of civic history, understanding of civic rights and strategies and sharing in a growing civic culture of regular participation. The next three subsections define what is meant by civic knowledge, civic skills, and civic dispositions as they pertained to this study.

[edit] Civic knowledgeThe irony of defining a body of finite knowledge in a democratic system is that it cannot be done without limiting the deliberative discourse necessary for a democracy to exist. Both the National Standards and the Civics Framework for the 1998 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) have developed five essential questions to promote the discussion towards a shared understanding of what citizens ought to know:

What are civic life, politics, and government?
What are the foundations of the American political system?
How does the government established by the Constitution embody the purposes, values, and principles of American democracy?
What is the relationship of the United States to other nations and to world affairs?
What are the roles of citizens in American democracy?
The civic knowledge defined by the five questions requires the citizenry to put into context those systems, historical documents, cultural pieces, values, law, international government and non-governmental organizations, and individual rights and responsibilities. To gain an understanding of this civic knowledge would require the social studies educator to address these questions in an authentic manner in the civics classroom as supported by NCSS (1992, 2001) and their definition of what a civic educator is as well as through their definition of an effective citizen.

[edit] Civic skills A civic base of knowledge in a democracy would hold no value if citizens were unable to critically think about and act upon that knowledge (NCSS, 2001). In a democracy, citizens are decision-makers and are expected to continually develop and improve their abilities to evaluate, take and defend a position (Branson, 1998), to articulate the meaning of the tangible and intangible symbols of a democracy, to explain how a function of government should operate and the consequences of that operation, as well as to be able to interact, monitor and influence the political process of a democracy (Branson, 1998). Critical thinking in the social studies has been seen as a necessary goal to effective civic education. According to Ennis (1985), "Critical thinking is reflective and reasonable thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do" (p. 45). Limited definitions focus on evaluation or appraisal; critical thinking is formulation and use of criteria to make warranted judgments about knowledge claims, normative statements, methods of inquiry, policy decisions, alternative positions on public issues, or any other object of concern. Critical thinking, defined narrowly, is an essential element of general cognitive processes, such as problem solving or decision making, but is not synonymous with them. Critical thinking, whether conceived broadly or narrowly, implies curiosity, skepticism, reflection, and rationality. Critical thinkers have a propensity to raise and explore questions about beliefs, claims, evidence, definitions, conclusions, and actions. (Patrick, 1986, pp. 2-3) Despite the identified importance of critical thinking in civic education along with increased research and discourse on the topic it has not been found to be taught satisfactorily in most social studies classrooms. This has been noted by the governing body for social studies education, NCSS, as they continue to reinforce the need for the connection between critical thinking and civic efficacy: Powerful social studies teaching begins with a clear understanding of the subject’s unique purposes and goals. NCSS’s statement “Essentials of the Social Studies” identifies citizenship education as the primary purpose of K-12 social studies. Noting that concern for the common good and citizen participation in public life are essential to the health of our democratic system, it states that effective social studies programs prepare young people to identify, understand, and work to solve the problems facing our diverse nation in an increasingly interdependent world. (NCSS, 1999) Goodlad's nationwide study of schooling demonstrated little evidence of the critical thinking supported by NCSS and concluded that "preoccupation with the lower intellectual processes pervades social studies and science as well" (1984, p. 236).

[edit] Civic dispositionsThe “habits of the heart” (de Toqueville as cited in Mayer, 1969), or civic dispositions, are those pieces of private and public character that weave a democracy together allowing for it to be celebrated and critiqued in the public square. The purpose and necessity of these civic dispositions are perhaps articulated best by Judge Learned Hand (1944): “Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there, it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it (1).” To have civic knowledge and skill without the capacity to implement and assess them makes them valueless. The National Standards for Civics and Government have identified those dispositions “that contribute to the political efficacy of the individual, the healthy functioning of the political system, a sense of dignity and worth, and the common good” (Branson, 1998, p. 8):

Becoming an independent member of society
Assuming the personal, political, and economic responsibilities of a citizen
Respecting individual worth and human dignity
Participating in civic affairs in a thoughtful and effective manner
Promoting the healthy functioning of constitutional democracy
All of these dispositions require the citizenry to accept responsibility for one’s self and their actions, to listen and read for information, to lead, to accept majority decisions while recognizing minority opinions, to act and to invoke change through legal means.

Key to the implementation of civic knowledge, skills, and dispositions is how the curriculum in public schools is supported to foster these civic attributes.

And, by design, it has failed miserably

Everything that is wrong with the U.S. is caused by a concerted effort to destroy public education which has taken decades to achieve.
 

realitybugll

Jedi Council Member
I'm against government redistribution of wealth. mostly on a personal level, because I don't feel it is right. A government must forcefully take money from citizens to provide a good or service. Either through tax or future-tax (borrowing). In a lot of the US government functions, people are forced to pay for a service they don't receive - or might not even agree with. that's what I think is wrong. For instance if the govt. wants to provide well-fare to its citizens then it could do so through voluntary contributions. that I think is fine.

For this reason I bet I will feel the same way Reflection does about the article.

but maybe it's possible that through forced taxation, government creates a better society. I have not read any of the classic economic texts to really have an opinion.

webglider,

The article Reflection mentioned is has to do with government providing services / not doing so. Reflection thinks the government is better not providing certain services. He didn't say the court systems shouldn't regulate the private sector. An article I just read recently by a libertarian, on libertarian news site, argued for the return of glass-steagal.

For the example of the banks, I think it is clear it is really the government that is the cause of the fraud. the court systems and the Federal Reserve Bank. If the psychopaths in the banking sector weren't entitled to free money and weren't above the law, they would be harmless.
 

SoCurious

Jedi Master
Capitalism is based on competition. Competition means "beating the other guy". This is not the STO way. STO is rather about cooperation and synergy and may be more closely linked to the communal way of life. The ideal of democratic government is one that works hand in glove with the citizenry - a symbiotic relationship. Thus taxes are never taken by force but rather gladly given to be used to the benefit of all.
 

Gonzo

The Living Force
Hi Reflection,

I hope, based on your user name, that you are able to reflect a bit that you might have such a strong attachment to certain beliefs that they might cause you to have black and white or all or nothing approaches to such situations. In Canada, I have had the fortune of seeing how small business approaches the delivery of services as well as large corporations and governments in municipal, provincial and federal levels. Here's what I've learned. The larger the organization, the less efficient they become and this, I believe, has something to do with bureaucracies, which seem to become organisms that have two primary drives: to perform their mandate and to ensure their survival, often through growth.

I have also noticed, especially in government, an incredible passion and high degree of professionalism. In fact, I really don't understand where the concept of the overpaid and lazy civil servant came from, since the overwhelming majority of civil servants I've met tended to work long hours and their pay is actually often lower than one would find in the private sector, especially in areas requiring higher levels of specialization and education (e.g. scientists, lawyers, analysts, economists).

I have also noticed that when services are privatized, they may be initial savings, but they are often attributed to the bidding process and soon after, rates start getting jacked up, since the corporations are beholden to the share holders or corporate elite. In fact, the executive have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profits and any attempt to transfer savings back to the recipeint of the service instead of to the corporate beneficiaries would be a violation of that fiduciary responsibility.

So, notwithstanding political meddling in the business of government, which, at least in Canada, is supposed to be an arms length relationship, government could actually be more effective and efficient if certain check and balance practices where to be put in place to better quantify return on investment of programs and cultures formed to support those practices. We are starting to see this with the growth of performance measurement in government.

There are several academic studies relating to bureaucracies, not to mention the optimal size of business (look up diminishing returns and economies of scale) that help us see some of the problems related to large organizations and their possible solutions. Harvard School of Business could be a good place to start, if you are intersted and haven't read up in these areas.

The political meddling is the last part of the equation. While this is significant in any country, and Canada is as good an example as any, the Unites States is even worse. When legislation is being drafted, the horse trading begins. It is a rare day when a proposed bill is discussed on its own merit. In order to get support for a bill, the executive arm of government has to start catering to the need of the individual representatives who are driven to demonstrate to their constituents, not to mention powerful lobbies, how well the work for them. This is pay back time. This is when representatives pay back favors owed. Bills start getting watered down to satisfy the individual needs, often unrelated to the matter at hand, and often resulting in amendments or omnibus expansions, and, in the end, no longer have the strength or even purpose of the original intent. The perfect example of this is American economic and trade policies.

So, the process of legislation is broken, where corporations and special interests run the show, to the point that there is little indistinguishable between government and corporations. I fact, some mega wealthy types, not to mention certain nation power elites, might tell you they prefer things exactly the way they are. It is easier to lobby government through representatives than it is to but their way into whatever corporation is awarded contracts to deliver certain lucrative services.

If I had to chose between a large corporation driven by self interest or a publicly funded institution driven by a sense of service and accountable to the public, I'd have to choose the latter. Either way, you will get a large bureaucracy, but the one that had a vested interest in the public as a stakeholder and not private shareholders, seems the lesser of two evils.

Fix how the elected government works and you would fix a large part of the problem. Then we can focus on helping public bureaucracies work more efficiently and more effectively.

Having said that, the are certain services that government should not be involved in. The range from repairing shoes to protecting the nation is huge and should be looked at more closely, so we can define specific criteria. Sometimes socialistic approaches make sense, sometimes they don't.

But let's not fool ourselves into thinking that privatization is the solution either, considering the lack of commitment to the public, corruption and corporate self interest. This issue is far to complex to be reduced to black and white, either/or thinking.

Gonzo
 

Niall

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Reflection said:
Bottomline: When markets are left alone it causes competition to generate sales. Competition in turn drives prices down as businesses compete for your money. It forces companies to come up with perks and extras to out-do each other, which only benefits the consumer. When govt gets involved they create govt sponsored monopolies who charge whatever they want, why? Because the taxpayer is going to get stuck with the bill.

So they keep telling us, but is it true?

The big problem here lies in the hidden ways in which markets are manipulated. You would not believe the extent of it! Ellen Brown seems to have a done a great job of explaining it in her book Web of Debt

We don't live in a free market system. The game is entirely rigged from the center outwards, and has been for a long time. Market boom or market crash, the money-makers win. We live in what Bill Hicks aptly termed a 'fake economy', where nothing is as it seems.

Here are a couple of quotes from Web of Debt, a book I highly recommend, which directly contradict the myth that government is inefficient vis a vis the 'hidden hand of the market' and get right down to the root of the problem, the creation of money:

The Fear of Giving Big Government Even More Power, p.385

The usual objections to returning the power to create money [away from 'the Fed', a private entity run by private banks] to Congress are that (a) it would be inflationary, and (b) it would give a corrupt government even more power. But as will be detailed in Chapter 44, government-issued money would actually be less inflationary than the system we have now; and it is precisely because power and money corrupt that money creation needs to be done by a public body, exercised in full view and with full accountability. [...]

What has allowed government to become corrupted today is that it is actually run by the money cartel. Big Business holds all the cards, because its affiliated banks have monopolized the business of issuing and lending the national money supply, a function of the Constitution delegated solely to Congress. What hides behind the banner of "free enterprise" today is a system in which giant corporate monopolies have used their affiliated banking trusts to generate unlimited funds to buy up competitors, the media, and the government itself, forcing truly independent private enterprise out. Big private banks are allowed to create money out of nothing, lend it at interest, foreclose on the collateral, and determine who gets credit and who doesn't. They can advance massive loans to their affiliated corporations and hedge funds, which use the money to raid competitors and manipulate markets.

If some players have the power to create money and others don't, the playing field is not level but allows some favored players to dominate and coerce others. These giant corporations can be brought to heel only by cutting off their source of power and returning it to its rightful sovereign owners, the people themselves. Private enterprise needs publicly-operated police, courts and laws to keep corporate predators at bay. It also needs a system of truly national banks, in which the power to create the money and advance the credit of the people is retained by the people. We trust government with sweeping powers to declare and conduct wars, provide for the general welfare, and establish and enforce laws. Why not trust it to create the national money supply in all its forms? [...]

Shifting the power to create money to Congress can relieve future generations of the burden of perpetual interest payments to an elite class of financial oligarchs who have advanced nothing of their own to earn it. The banking spider that has the country trapped in its debt web could be decapitated, returning national sovereignty to the people themselves.

The Question of Government Inefficiency, p.411

A common objection to getting the government involved in business is that it is notoriously inefficient at those pursuits; but Betty Reid Mandell, author of 'Selling Uncle Sam', maintains that this reputation is undeserved. She points out that the only enterprises left to government are those from which private enterprise cannot make a profit. Surveys show that in-house operation of publicly-owned services is generally more efficient than contracting them out, while privatizing public infrastructure for private profit has typically led to increased costs, inefficiency, and corruption. [...]
 

Buddy

The Living Force
Hi Reflection.

As I see it, by framing your argument as either privatization or gov't control and giving most of the weight to the side that's against gov't control, you're not really addressing the article or its author.

Interestingly, your argument fits the pattern I call the Boris Yeltsin propaganda technique. Maybe that's accidental?

To expand: Yeltsin's campaign spokesman was once asked (paraphrasing) "To what do you give credit for getting Yeltsin elected when he was just as hated as all the other candidates?" The spokesman said (paraphrasing) "We kept Yeltsin off camera. We talked about how bad things would be and what life would be like if the other candidates were president. Without referring to Yeltsin at all, the people simply felt he was the best choice."
 

Gonzo

The Living Force
Even a free market scares me in many cases. Aside from collusion and price fixing, cutting corners to maximize profits can lead to health and safety issues. Even in a heavily regulated area like food safety, we still see companies trying to skirt the laws, resulting in increased risk of food-borne illnesses. So, the argument often toted by free market supporters, that consumer forces would merely abandon companies whose products are lacking in quality or safety doesn't bear out in reality. We still have reputable companies with a history of cutting corners that affect quality and safety. They take their fines, make temporary adjustments, fuel the PR and advertising machine and eventually return to their default position of cutting corners and trying to find ways around regulation in the name of profits. When we combine that practice with the devil may care attitude of psychopaths, the result is that we cannot trust corporate entities with public funds, let alone resources.

I've also been watching the public/private partnerships lately with great interest and haven't seen many successes. These P3 approaches seem to be ideal for the corporate world, where they get all of the benefit and little of the liability. There have been too many cases of corporations running public utilities into the ground and then abandoning them, with the taxpayer left holding the bag.

Gonzo
 
Top Bottom