I think this is a seperate issue when private corporations build and own roads. I dont know enough about that sort of thing, I was more referring to how the government hires out private companies to create infrastructure instead of having government employees do it.
- 0 Posts
- 294 Comments
I used to also, and I understand the issue, but the mega corps will still be more efficient than the government. This brings up the other issue of how the government funds all the tax dollars to large corporations and also props them up with regulatory protections.
Public employees are almost always not the highest quality and tend to be overpaid, why is it bad to have private companies do the work?
I agree, I think we need to go back to a more small community groups where people with similar ideologies in similar places build up bonds. I have been trying but I think we are a bit too individualistic and those groups only tend to be family based.
I agree with most of what you are saying, but it just doesnt work as a system in our current cultural framework. There has to be an exchange of value added to money given, its not perfect but there just is not a way to do it better differently without discouraging going above and beyond.
Not all, but a majority of labor people do is to make money. What reason do I have to work extra hard for if not for financial gain?
Then there would be no reason to go above and beyond.
Its a show of solidarity, there really is not an issue unless you are against people supporting each other in other symbols.
I listened to that podcast, and it is just a one sided argument against a few studies, and just kind of hand waves away criticism or strawmans it.
I am open to actual data showing this from historically abused and marginalized group.
I didnt stop reading, but comments get too long and it gets lots in the noise. But if you want it
“Why would investors be ok with Amazon not turning a profit for 9 years?” Because they had vision that amazon would become one of the biggest companies in the world.
“What magical force brings down the price of necessities when there’s less government?” - Competition.
As a former engineer and current construction business owner that deals with actual codes, I can tell you that you dont understand what is happening. As someone who has been on both sides of regulations, I understand why they exist, but they either are ignored, are overkill, or have so low a probability of happening its not worth the cost. I can give you an example of each, but I absolutely promise you that you have a false understand of what is happening.
Trickle down economics isnt a thing, its propaganda.
I think most sane people want to have it lower, the contention comes when we get to how to lower it.
The main flaw that I think you are making is that you see similar circumstances to something in the past and think the same thing will happen again. Its kind of like with the Ukraine war, people see a country invading another country and think russia is nazi germany and will take over the continent, but in reality the material conditions are completely different. No, we would not start having company stores pop up and kids losing hands on sewing machines, things are drastically different from the industrial revolution.
There is a lot here, so I will directly answer your questions - what part? Because the government is huge I will talk about what I know best - housing. The government(s) add over $100k for every single family house new build, on average. These are things that are not necessary but are required. I can explain in detail because this is going to sound crazy but it is not, I would eliminate nearly all government involvement in everything two story and under. All the government should do is verify location and then verify appropriate utilities (which is both gov and private). We should do a lot of this on most things and make it so people can afford things.
The other big thing would be ending the fed.
So as you say influencing public opinion is bad because then that public opinion is used by a POWERFUL government to harm people. I agree that is what I am talking about, the government having the power over your life is the bad thing, not the opinions of rich people. They can have whatever opinion they want, and the only way they can make it count is if they can sway the people to vote your rights away or directly sway the current officials.
I didnt ignore what you said, I am trying to redirect it from the rhetoric to the solid. Its not that the government is all bad or corrupt or even bad, its that it is used to benefit the people that can get that power. The more government there is the better it is for big business and rich people. Its not that Jeff or Elon can typically harm you, its that they can make the government do things in their favor and against your interests.
I get your points, but you I think that you are mistaking no government for less government. Is the price of necessities being so high good for you, or would you like inflation not to destroy your earnings?
Why does influencing public opinion and elections matter to you?
I like your last paragraph, I think it distills it nicely. Its not that they directly harm you, they influence the government which is allowed to harm you.
Its not an ideological statement, it is a comment on the structure of the organizations and how they have to work to survive. Corporations need to do things efficiently or they disappear, the reason large companies are able to be so inefficient is that they are propped up by the government. But the big corporations still have to be more efficient than the other giant companies or their business gets taken.
When it comes to the government they can have irrational requirements and ways of doing things, and since they allegedly are beholden only to the voters (who dont have a clue what is happening) then they can be as inefficient as they want. An example that is non monetary is how the police will investigate themselves and find they did nothing wrong, they only have an incentive to protect themselves and their own people.