Privatizing state resources to save money?

[oVo]

[...] why does this bother you (and Player) but not government spending generally?

It all bothers me... and particularly the "financing" of elected officials.
It has been corrupted for ages with no end in sight.

[PLAYER57832]

A cynic could see a pattern here... get people to oppose higher taxes, let the structures fail until people are desperate enough to agree to privatization, of in quick deals... and then sit back and laugh while you collect the money.

The agendas being put forward today by those claiming to be "conservative", pretend to be a lot of things, but are really just about boosting further the powerful, the biggest business and those who already have a lot of cash. Some do it out of a kind of "eyes open" idea that they will benefit ; some, most notably many of the Tea Partiers, have deluded themselves into thinking they are pursuing some other ideal. It doesn't really matter. By failing to really look forward they are just allowing themselves to be manipulated.

Summary:
So, 'conservatives' are self-seeking agenda-pushers who bolster the powerful, biggest business.
The Tea Party is deluded.

When I was younger, I can remember arguments by the John Birch Society and then the Liberaterians. I had a teenage penchant for debating politics. That their arguments sounded fairly similar did not bother me at all. In retrospect, it does.

Summary:
The John Birch Society and the Libertarians make fairly similar arguments.

Or, to put it even more simply.. it doesn't matter if you want to cut taxes so much that government cannot do its jobs or just want to cut government itself so they cannot operate as it should, the result is that others wind up taking over, excercising the control and power that, in a democratic type government (democratic hybrids, of course, since there is no real 100% democracy) rightfully belongs with the elected representatives of the people.

Cutting back government leaves plenty of room for big business to do as it will, to ride over anyone in its way. For all greekdog, et al talk about wanting freedom, you are all more than happy to just hand it over so someone else can make a profit.

Summary:
By limiting government spending (federal government, I presume) and its power, then "others take over" somehow without having access to the 'legitimate' monopoly of force, i.e. the use of violence. Well, that makes no sense because without state-mandated monopoly and privileges, then the Old Guard of business face extremely deadly competition for themselves. Pretty hard to 'force' people to buy your product when the gates to more markets have been fully opened to competitors.

You BBS have the illusion that business left alone will somehow control itself and result in something that will somehow be beneficial for society. That is just false, not based on facts at all.. no matter how much you pretend it is. The fact is that the market is great at putting sugar coatings on pills once pills are invented, sometimes at discovering the idea of a pill... but not at finding the basic powders that need to go into the pill and not at discovering the harm that will come from the additives to the coating, unless the harm is very quick.

Summary:
1. Markets are not self-enforcing, nor can they--if left alone--will be beneficial for society. (What about competitive certification agencies, FOCJs? What is the optimal scope and amount of government? I digress).
2. Markets can't find basic powders for making a pill. (um wut. The government dumps money into that market to discover these innovations..., and others can do this without government funding, but I digress).
3. Pill Producers are oblivious to the lawsuits concerning their coating of pills--unless the harm is quick. (Well, that's a statute of limitations issue, which is problem with the government. It's also a certification problem, which is monopolized by the federal government (FDA). Apparently, you have a problem with government-provided courts and the FDA, yet characterize that as the 'doings' of the market. Given this misunderstanding, it doesn't seem clear that you can really offer a strong criticism against markets).

You asked me earlier what brought the 1950's. The answer is really a strong government. A strong government people believed in led to the 1960's, the moon, more college educated adults than ever before, civil rights, women's rights, and many other benefits we now just take for granted.

Summary:
Big Government creates the 1960s, the trip to the moon, more college education, civil rights, and women's rights.

You do know that some of these were strongly resisted by those within the government--and through the means of government, right?
Anyway, correlation != causation. Civil society != Big Government. The relevant ideas, institutions, and market-backed processes of production of space ships, music, education, marketing of such ideas, etc. are not solely within the realm of Big Government. All of this is implicit within your claim, but obviously it's incorrect. Finally, it's not wise to leave out the costs of a 'benefit-only' analysis. That would lead to a jaded view...

A cynic could see a pattern here... get people to oppose higher taxes, let the structures fail until people are desperate enough to agree to privatization, of in quick deals... and then sit back and laugh while you collect the money.

What's that mean?
Agenda-setting 'conservatives' and presumably 'libertarians' and John Birchers get people to oppose higher taxes, let unknown structures fail (government programs, I guess)--somehow they have this power to make them fail, and not at all is it due to bureaucratic incompetence, and then people seek privatization (but not 'more government spending' or 'higher taxes'), and then THEY sit back and laugh while THEY collect the money--whoever THEY are. 'Conservatives' I guess, whoever they are too.

1. Obviously, the unmentioned, who are pro-big government, attain the same outcomes (helping big business). Others who can't be crammed into black-and-white views (conservative, liberal, etc.) also appeal to the government to attain similar outcomes which you dislike (via rent-seeking). So, steps toward bigger government attain the outcomes which you dislike, but it's interesting that you omit this. I already mentioned many other problems in the parentheses, so good luck

2. Ideally, I'm for free markets, less/zero government, I'm morally libertarian with a helping of consequentialism, which in turn makes me, Practically, a person who wants more people to become more cognizant of the actual political process and the market process, and basically smaller, centralized government. This entails battering down one's ideology, which apparently blinds people like you and JB (note the Unmentioned portion of your argument).

Nice try, but no. Funny how you managed to nicely sumarize my original point, the one you claimed you "could not unders

When you go from arguing any real point to simply belittling... its pretty clear you are on the losing side. Too bad you are not gentleman enough to admit it.

[PLAYER57832]

[...] why does this bother you (and Player) but not government spending generally?

It all bothers me... and particularly the "financing" of elected officials.
It has been corrupted for ages with no end in sight.

I agree, but talking about all of it is too much and leads no where. So, I focus on a few specific issues within the greater problem.

Also, if you have just been told the foundation of your house needs shoring up, and then you look to see your pan is on fire on the stove.. which are you going to tend to first?

Fracking in the Allegheny is a grease fire. Fixing our education system and campaign financie reform are shoring up our foundations.

[BigBallinStalin]

A cynic could see a pattern here... get people to oppose higher taxes, let the structures fail until people are desperate enough to agree to privatization, of in quick deals... and then sit back and laugh while you collect the money.

The agendas being put forward today by those claiming to be "conservative", pretend to be a lot of things, but are really just about boosting further the powerful, the biggest business and those who already have a lot of cash. Some do it out of a kind of "eyes open" idea that they will benefit ; some, most notably many of the Tea Partiers, have deluded themselves into thinking they are pursuing some other ideal. It doesn't really matter. By failing to really look forward they are just allowing themselves to be manipulated.

Summary:
So, 'conservatives' are self-seeking agenda-pushers who bolster the powerful, biggest business.
The Tea Party is deluded.

When I was younger, I can remember arguments by the John Birch Society and then the Liberaterians. I had a teenage penchant for debating politics. That their arguments sounded fairly similar did not bother me at all. In retrospect, it does.

Summary:
The John Birch Society and the Libertarians make fairly similar arguments.

Or, to put it even more simply.. it doesn't matter if you want to cut taxes so much that government cannot do its jobs or just want to cut government itself so they cannot operate as it should, the result is that others wind up taking over, excercising the control and power that, in a democratic type government (democratic hybrids, of course, since there is no real 100% democracy) rightfully belongs with the elected representatives of the people.

Cutting back government leaves plenty of room for big business to do as it will, to ride over anyone in its way. For all greekdog, et al talk about wanting freedom, you are all more than happy to just hand it over so someone else can make a profit.

Summary:
By limiting government spending (federal government, I presume) and its power, then "others take over" somehow without having access to the 'legitimate' monopoly of force, i.e. the use of violence. Well, that makes no sense because without state-mandated monopoly and privileges, then the Old Guard of business face extremely deadly competition for themselves. Pretty hard to 'force' people to buy your product when the gates to more markets have been fully opened to competitors.

You BBS have the illusion that business left alone will somehow control itself and result in something that will somehow be beneficial for society. That is just false, not based on facts at all.. no matter how much you pretend it is. The fact is that the market is great at putting sugar coatings on pills once pills are invented, sometimes at discovering the idea of a pill... but not at finding the basic powders that need to go into the pill and not at discovering the harm that will come from the additives to the coating, unless the harm is very quick.

Summary:
1. Markets are not self-enforcing, nor can they--if left alone--will be beneficial for society. (What about competitive certification agencies, FOCJs? What is the optimal scope and amount of government? I digress).
2. Markets can't find basic powders for making a pill. (um wut. The government dumps money into that market to discover these innovations..., and others can do this without government funding, but I digress).
3. Pill Producers are oblivious to the lawsuits concerning their coating of pills--unless the harm is quick. (Well, that's a statute of limitations issue, which is problem with the government. It's also a certification problem, which is monopolized by the federal government (FDA). Apparently, you have a problem with government-provided courts and the FDA, yet characterize that as the 'doings' of the market. Given this misunderstanding, it doesn't seem clear that you can really offer a strong criticism against markets).

You asked me earlier what brought the 1950's. The answer is really a strong government. A strong government people believed in led to the 1960's, the moon, more college educated adults than ever before, civil rights, women's rights, and many other benefits we now just take for granted.

Summary:
Big Government creates the 1960s, the trip to the moon, more college education, civil rights, and women's rights.

You do know that some of these were strongly resisted by those within the government--and through the means of government, right?
Anyway, correlation != causation. Civil society != Big Government. The relevant ideas, institutions, and market-backed processes of production of space ships, music, education, marketing of such ideas, etc. are not solely within the realm of Big Government. All of this is implicit within your claim, but obviously it's incorrect. Finally, it's not wise to leave out the costs of a 'benefit-only' analysis. That would lead to a jaded view...

A cynic could see a pattern here... get people to oppose higher taxes, let the structures fail until people are desperate enough to agree to privatization, of in quick deals... and then sit back and laugh while you collect the money.

What's that mean?
Agenda-setting 'conservatives' and presumably 'libertarians' and John Birchers get people to oppose higher taxes, let unknown structures fail (government programs, I guess)--somehow they have this power to make them fail, and not at all is it due to bureaucratic incompetence, and then people seek privatization (but not 'more government spending' or 'higher taxes'), and then THEY sit back and laugh while THEY collect the money--whoever THEY are. 'Conservatives' I guess, whoever they are too.

1. Obviously, the unmentioned, who are pro-big government, attain the same outcomes (helping big business). Others who can't be crammed into black-and-white views (conservative, liberal, etc.) also appeal to the government to attain similar outcomes which you dislike (via rent-seeking). So, steps toward bigger government attain the outcomes which you dislike, but it's interesting that you omit this. I already mentioned many other problems in the parentheses, so good luck

2. Ideally, I'm for free markets, less/zero government, I'm morally libertarian with a helping of consequentialism, which in turn makes me, Practically, a person who wants more people to become more cognizant of the actual political process and the market process, and basically smaller, centralized government. This entails battering down one's ideology, which apparently blinds people like you and JB (note the Unmentioned portion of your argument).

Nice try, but no. Funny how you managed to nicely sumarize my original point, the one you claimed you "could not unders

When you go from arguing any real point to simply belittling... its pretty clear you are on the losing side. Too bad you are not gentleman enough to admit it.

If all you can do is essentially counter with: "NO UR WRONG," "I"M EMOTIONALLY ATTACHED TO MY IDEOLOGY," and [insert straw man fallacy], then I can confidently walk away knowing that I'm right and that you once again hold nonsensical views about the world.

[PLAYER57832]

If all you can do is essentially counter with: "NO UR WRONG," "I"M EMOTIONALLY ATTACHED TO MY IDEOLOGY," and [insert straw man fallacy], then I can confidently walk away knowing that I'm right and that you once again hold nonsensical views about the world.

Nice try, but disagreeing with you doesn't equate to "straw man fallacy". Sorry, but that IS a straw man.

I provided you with enough real data. Every time I do, you ignore it and lapse into a personal attack.

[PLAYER57832]

It's not a competitive process. Underlying those exchanges is 'political clout', not superior quality or performance. It's an "old boy network."

This is the prime error in your thinking.. or rather, pretended thinking because you basically stop at that point.

That "lack of competition" is the inherent, ultimate result of a true free market, left on its own. The bigger guy gets more power, gains more advantage and, eventually has so much power and advantage that no one can compete.

It doesn't matter if its Rockafeller given away Kerosene; Walmart continually forcing suppliers to cut prices, cut prices without regard to how they do it or whehter it is actually reasonable that they do so or not; Or construction companies deciding that its cheaper to pretend workers are contracted, or grain elevator operators deciding that they just don't have time to hook 16 year olds up to safety belts in grain elevators. The one willing to cut the most corners, gets the money and gets the contracts UNLESS there are outside forces, rules that are actually enforced. More power means they get to write the rules to favor their methods... just like in Texas. They win, society as a whole loses. The game today, as before the Depression is to pretend that what benefits the the businesses with the money is beneficial to society. It can be superficially true for a while, just as Walmart truly did initially offer lower prices but also decent enough wages and conditions, but now is the epitomy of abuse.

The only counter to that is rules generated from the masses, rules that oppose big business interests sometimes, sometimes cooincide, but that don't put this idea that "anything for business is OK" as the forefront ideology like you wish to pretend.

Sometimes rules beneficial to society come through "voluntary agreements", but that only happens when there is a basis of law, basis of fundamental protective rules AND a reasonable threat of even more restrictive rules by the government.

Sure, you can put up statistics that "prove" your ideas are correct, but what you cannot do is provide the fundamental understanding of where that data really came from or the real world impact of these ideas and figures you tout. Economists that do are the ones admitting that their predictions have only 10% accuracy after 2 years, not the ones claiming that all we have to do is lower taxes and reduce the binds on business to get stuff to happen.

[BigBallinStalin]

If all you can do is essentially counter with: "NO UR WRONG," "I"M EMOTIONALLY ATTACHED TO MY IDEOLOGY," and [insert straw man fallacy], then I can confidently walk away knowing that I'm right and that you once again hold nonsensical views about the world.

Nice try, but disagreeing with you doesn't equate to "straw man fallacy". Sorry, but that IS a straw man.

I provided you with enough real data. Every time I do, you ignore it and lapse into a personal attack.

So, you provide an argument (lol, "real data"), it gets refuted, and then you provide no substantial counter-argument. Obviously, you don't really have much of a defense. My favorite gaping hole in your stance was the Unmentioned groups which attain the same outcomes which you (allegedly) despise, but again that's something you have to deal with. Hopefully, you have an ideological problem which prevents you from thinking clearly and consistently.

To sum up our exchange here: I can explain why you're making a stupid argument, but you can't do the same for me nor can you restore the standing of your argument. Eventually, ITT you'll get off your podium and start selling crazy in other threads.

[BigBallinStalin]

It's not a competitive process. Underlying those exchanges is 'political clout', not superior quality or performance. It's an "old boy network."

This is the prime error in your thinking.. or rather, pretended thinking because you basically stop at that point.

That "lack of competition" is the inherent, ultimate result of a true free market, left on its own. The bigger guy gets more power, gains more advantage and, eventually has so much power and advantage that no one can compete.

It doesn't matter if its Rockafeller given away Kerosene; Walmart continually forcing suppliers to cut prices, cut prices without regard to how they do it or whehter it is actually reasonable that they do so or not; Or construction companies deciding that its cheaper to pretend workers are contracted, or grain elevator operators deciding that they just don't have time to hook 16 year olds up to safety belts in grain elevators. The one willing to cut the most corners, gets the money and gets the contracts UNLESS there are outside forces, rules that are actually enforced. More power means they get to write the rules to favor their methods... just like in Texas. They win, society as a whole loses. The game today, as before the Depression is to pretend that what benefits the the businesses with the money is beneficial to society. It can be superficially true for a while, just as Walmart truly did initially offer lower prices but also decent enough wages and conditions, but now is the epitomy of abuse.

The only counter to that is rules generated from the masses, rules that oppose big business interests sometimes, sometimes cooincide, but that don't put this idea that "anything for business is OK" as the forefront ideology like you wish to pretend.

Sometimes rules beneficial to society come through "voluntary agreements", but that only happens when there is a basis of law, basis of fundamental protective rules AND a reasonable threat of even more restrictive rules by the government.

Sure, you can put up statistics that "prove" your ideas are correct, but what you cannot do is provide the fundamental understanding of where that data really came from or the real world impact of these ideas and figures you tout. Economists that do are the ones admitting that their predictions have only 10% accuracy after 2 years, not the ones claiming that all we have to do is lower taxes and reduce the binds on business to get stuff to happen.

You don't know what you're talking about--judging from your rants in other places which have already been addressed, so I feel no obligation in dealing with your ideological nonsense. You're also taking the above out of context, which is stupid.

[patches70]

Ha ha BBS, you can't understand because you are blinded by facts!

[thegreekdog]

Ironically, Player is the first one to point out when someone doesn't know what he or she is talking about (e.g. science) and takes great pains to make that person feel unknowledgeable. On the other hand, in threads like these, she clearly has no idea what she's talking about, but gets offended when anyone suggests that. In sum, like always, Player is hypocritical.

[PLAYER57832]

If all you can do is essentially counter with: "NO UR WRONG," "I"M EMOTIONALLY ATTACHED TO MY IDEOLOGY," and [insert straw man fallacy], then I can confidently walk away knowing that I'm right and that you once again hold nonsensical views about the world.

Nice try, but disagreeing with you doesn't equate to "straw man fallacy". Sorry, but that IS a straw man.

I provided you with enough real data. Every time I do, you ignore it and lapse into a personal attack.

So, you provide an argument (lol, "real data"), it gets refuted, and then you provide no substantial counter-argument. Obviously, you don't really have much of a defense. My favorite gaping hole in your stance was the Unmentioned groups which attain the same outcomes which you (allegedly) despise, but again that's something you have to deal with. Hopefully, you have an ideological problem which prevents you from thinking clearly and consistently.

To sum up our exchange here: I can explain why you're making a stupid argument, but you can't do the same for me nor can you restore the standing of your argument. Eventually, ITT you'll get off your podium and start selling crazy in other threads.

A true free market ALWAYS leads to a monopoly. You want to pretend it leads to some utopia, but cannot point to even one single example where it has truly worked. Constraint is always required.

[BigBallinStalin]

If all you can do is essentially counter with: "NO UR WRONG," "I"M EMOTIONALLY ATTACHED TO MY IDEOLOGY," and [insert straw man fallacy], then I can confidently walk away knowing that I'm right and that you once again hold nonsensical views about the world.

Nice try, but disagreeing with you doesn't equate to "straw man fallacy". Sorry, but that IS a straw man.

I provided you with enough real data. Every time I do, you ignore it and lapse into a personal attack.

So, you provide an argument (lol, "real data"), it gets refuted, and then you provide no substantial counter-argument. Obviously, you don't really have much of a defense. My favorite gaping hole in your stance was the Unmentioned groups which attain the same outcomes which you (allegedly) despise, but again that's something you have to deal with. Hopefully, you have an ideological problem which prevents you from thinking clearly and consistently.

To sum up our exchange here: I can explain why you're making a stupid argument, but you can't do the same for me nor can you restore the standing of your argument. Eventually, ITT you'll get off your podium and start selling crazy in other threads.

A true free market ALWAYS leads to a monopoly. You want to pretend it leads to some utopia, but cannot point to even one single example where it has truly worked. Constraint is always required.

haha, if your 'reasoning' has been as 'clear' and 'valid' as before, then I'm sure we must take your additional claims seriously!

[Phatscotty]

click to hear the interview:
http://wpsu.org/radio/single_entry/LL-4 ... enoteradio
(There is no transcript of the main program, at least yet.. so follow the link to listen. Below are a few related articles posted with the interview.)

Take Note Radio: Privatization
Posted in Take Note Radio, 2013-04-07

A number of privatization initiatives have been proposed in Pennsylvania in recent years. A combination of state and local budget crises has prompted these so-called public-private partnerships that seek to transfer ownership of public assets or services to the private sector in exchange for lump sums of money. Everything from the state lottery to liquor sales and even prisons are up for grabs. The belief among proponents of these deals is that the private sector can do many things better—and usually for less money—than governments can. Critics say privatization often exploits financial hardship, undermines democracy and, in the long-run costs taxpayers money. Here to talk about that is Ellen Dannin, a law professor at Penn State and a leading legal expert on these public-private deals.

Some accompanying citations:
http://www.pfaw.org/rww-in-focus/predat ... ermining-d

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=1776350

http://articles.philly.com/2012-06-20/n ... trol-board

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index. ... _in_t.html

A cynic could see a pattern here... get people to oppose higher taxes, let the structures fail until people are desperate enough to agree to privatization, of in quick deals... and then sit back and laugh while you collect the money.

Is it really because of the belief the private sector can do better? Or is it because of the reality that the government fubar'd it and there is no other choice?

[BigBallinStalin]

Ironically, Player is the first one to point out when someone doesn't know what he or she is talking about (e.g. science) and takes great pains to make that person feel unknowledgeable. On the other hand, in threads like these, she clearly has no idea what she's talking about, but gets offended when anyone suggests that. In sum, like always, Player is hypocritical.

How could you say that?! Player deems herself to be a know-it-all, so she cannot be wrong! Obviously, you're wrong, you don't care about the environment, you think people have a negative value, and you enjoy eating puppies. You want to pretend it leads to some utopia, and sure, you can put up statistics that "prove" your ideas are correct, but what you cannot do is provide the fundamental understanding of where that data really came from.

It doesn't matter if its Rockafeller given away Kerosene. The only counter to that is rules generated from the masses.

This is the prime error in your thinking.. or rather, pretended thinking because you basically stop at that point.

HYPOCRITE!!!!!

[Lootifer]

Slight tangent (though fits within topic heading)...

Question for BBS and PS:

What do you think the best course under this situation is? (BBS you already know the context, PS see my earlier post on page 1 for details)

- Government is planning on partially privatising a major asset (book/asset value ~$4b NZD; market/potential earnings value: book value +/- 2b* as operates in a very high risk environment)
- Sale process kicked off approximately 12-18 months ago; shares go on sale 15th of this month; final price and listing happens early next month
- It has been publically known for approximately 6 months that an major consumer (literally makes up 15% of the market demand) is at risk of leaving the marketplace
- Sale process has not changed in light of this
- This risk has an indeterminent resolution period

Now assuming you guys are both in support of privatisation (conversion of a SoE to a 49% private/51% SoE). How would you have handled the addition of a major risk (which will be accounted for in the final pricing)? Would you delay? Truck on through?

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm not sure, Loot. I'm not in their executive board meetings!

As an SoE owner, if we waited, then either that major consumer leaves, doesn't leave, or the status remains unchanged/dubious. (I don't know who exactly that major consumer is, and if the local/provincial/national government is currently talking about subsidies/privileges with them, then that may reduce the uncertainty of them leaving). That's what I'd try to discover--call up my friends in politics, the bureaucracy, and that company to see what's going on. Maybe we could hammer out some mutually beneficial deal (not for taxpayers though, they'd shoulder the costs, but would be proud when we say, "for the good of the nation" or some shite like that!).

Also, I'm not sure how those 'registered sales' work. As the SoE Director or what have you, if I delay the sales, can the registrees simply scuttle the deal? What would happen to the price--excluding the perceived risk from the major consumer?

Is the price of each share currently locked in? Are particular investment banks going to the be the first ones to handle the sales? How similar is this to an IPO?

________
In general, I'm not sure, but in order to mitigate potential risk, I'd use my political clout to stabilize the situation for my bureaucracy/SoE. Hopefully, that network would've been laid out since I began work there, and especially since 2011 when talk of the sale was going on behind doors.

If I didn't lay that kind of foundation earlier, then I'd delay for more time to do so. Hey, if the price of this deal is really dependent on that major consumer, then that major consumer would have great leverage to earn some big tax credits, privileges, etc. Prepare for some serious haggling.
_________

Also, I'm not sure how pricing works for NZ electrical utilities. If it's very rigid, then they can't use that avenue to offset the costs from risk. (e.g. offering lower priced utilities to that major consumer to induce it to stay--"price discrimination!!" egads!).

[Lootifer]

Interestingly the entity being sold is not the supplier of the major consumer. Both are SoEs but the one who supplies the consumer is further back in the sale queue (did someone mention limited capital investment appitite? Small pond, small fish, big chunks of food; anyhoo...). However pretty stright forward principles involved (step change in demand, long-life infrastructure/capex based supply); prices will fall, and along with them potential earnings.

So the back and forth will be fun. The media campaign has begun (though Id guess its comparatively subtle compared to how it would go down in the US) where both the government and the supplier to major consumer have been firing jabs at the consumer (essentially trying to minimise their leverage), while the consumer has remained silent. On the flipside the government offered a subsidy that was refused by the consumer; not quite sure how to read that but I guess it must have been a lowball.

Fortunately the population has no tolerance for closed door shenanagins; they understand that the negoitations will be done in quiet, but once the dust settles if there's even a hint of dodgeyness to the deals heads will roll.

On your final point the large consumer already gets a top notch deal on price; the reason they are contemplating leaving is all external pressures. The mum and dad consumers always grumble about electricity prices, but different prices for different consumers is accepted as pretty standard (if you want a 600 MW direct 3 phase connection you can probably wrangle a fairly good price too).

[PLAYER57832]

click to hear the interview:
http://wpsu.org/radio/single_entry/LL-4 ... enoteradio
(There is no transcript of the main program, at least yet.. so follow the link to listen. Below are a few related articles posted with the interview.)

Take Note Radio: Privatization
Posted in Take Note Radio, 2013-04-07

A number of privatization initiatives have been proposed in Pennsylvania in recent years. A combination of state and local budget crises has prompted these so-called public-private partnerships that seek to transfer ownership of public assets or services to the private sector in exchange for lump sums of money. Everything from the state lottery to liquor sales and even prisons are up for grabs. The belief among proponents of these deals is that the private sector can do many things better—and usually for less money—than governments can. Critics say privatization often exploits financial hardship, undermines democracy and, in the long-run costs taxpayers money. Here to talk about that is Ellen Dannin, a law professor at Penn State and a leading legal expert on these public-private deals.

Some accompanying citations:
http://www.pfaw.org/rww-in-focus/predat ... ermining-d

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=1776350

http://articles.philly.com/2012-06-20/n ... trol-board

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index. ... _in_t.html

A cynic could see a pattern here... get people to oppose higher taxes, let the structures fail until people are desperate enough to agree to privatization, of in quick deals... and then sit back and laugh while you collect the money.

Is it really because of the belief the private sector can do better? Or is it because of the reality that the government fubar'd it and there is no other choice?

The government changes as people's demands change. Business, the private sector is ALWAYS about making money for a few.

Making money and business are not, in themselves bad. They are simply a-moral, without morals. Business is about making moeny. People turn the money into good or bad. But, when folks pretend that that amorality IS a kind of moral, then it becomes evil. Making money can never be an excuse for overlooking the ultimate good of society. A few people can do that and not harm society, but when it becomes the base paradigm, as you wish, then it becomes evil, without check.

[Night Strike]

The government changes as people's demands change. Business, the private sector is ALWAYS about making money for a few.

No, the government doesn't change with demands. If they did, the government wouldn't have shoved governmental health insurance mandates and taxes down our throats. If they listened to our demands, they would achieve a balanced budget through spending cuts.

Making money and business are not, in themselves bad. They are simply a-moral, without morals. Business is about making moeny. People turn the money into good or bad. But, when folks pretend that that amorality IS a kind of moral, then it becomes evil. Making money can never be an excuse for overlooking the ultimate good of society. A few people can do that and not harm society, but when it becomes the base paradigm, as you wish, then it becomes evil, without check.

The ultimate good of society is achieved when people choose for themselves what they need and want and work to achieve those goals. It's impossible to achieve good for society when it's dictated by the government. Freedom has done more to help people than any centrally planned economic system.

[PLAYER57832]

The government changes as people's demands change. Business, the private sector is ALWAYS about making money for a few.

No, the government doesn't change with demands. If they did, the government wouldn't have shoved governmental health insurance mandates and taxes down our throats. If they listened to our demands, they would achieve a balanced budget through spending cuts.

Actually, your words disprove your very point. Initially, we had no health care at all, nor social security. For the longest time, ANY kind of universal system, even one such as proposed was anathema.

You missed the important part.. it does not change quickly. You fail to understand that is fully by intent.
As much as I dislike many of our current policies, have dislike the direction things have been turning for the past 30-40 years, if the government were allowed to change with every whim as you suggest it ought, then there would be no stability, no way to have any kind of business or long term investments. I want change, wish it might be quick, but can also recognize that in all but a few cases, stability is better than going with every topsy turvey whim of society.

Oh, and before you start... we are facing a series of very urgent and immediate environmental threats. Things like an estimated 45% loss of all bee populations (Juan probably has better stats, but that was one initial report of what happened this season) DO impact you, whether you want to recognize that fact or not.

Making money and business are not, in themselves bad. They are simply a-moral, without morals. Business is about making moeny. People turn the money into good or bad. But, when folks pretend that that amorality IS a kind of moral, then it becomes evil. Making money can never be an excuse for overlooking the ultimate good of society. A few people can do that and not harm society, but when it becomes the base paradigm, as you wish, then it becomes evil, without check.

The ultimate good of society is achieved when people choose for themselves what they need and want and work to achieve those goals. It's impossible to achieve good for society when it's dictated by the government. Freedom has done more to help people than any centrally planned economic system.

The trouble is that you want to replace a government, science-based moderate set of plans based on need with an economy based on demands of the big corporations. You would complain because the government regulates fishing, instead of blasting BP for ruining the lives of millions, destroying more habitat than anyone will ever calculate (because it was not fully assessed prior to the damage). You complain becuase mines are regulated, not that miners are getting injured and killed because the cry for low taxes means fewer regulators. You would let some big housing contractor buy up prime farm land, build houses and sell them a too high prices to people who cannot afford them... and only want to blame the people buying them, and also want to ignore the fact that our country, once quite literally able to feed the world, is on the verge of having to become a food importer.
(note.. "on the verge" is a relative term and understanding why I say that requires looking at the water systems, alkalinity and slatification issues in soil, and diseases impacts, not just acreage).

In short, your theories might sound good.. but try looking at what actually happens when they are implemented. And, remember, we had a time when they were.. right before the Great Depression.

[Night Strike]

You missed the important part.. it does not change quickly. You fail to understand that is fully by intent.
As much as I dislike many of our current policies, have dislike the direction things have been turning for the past 30-40 years, if the government were allowed to change with every whim as you suggest it ought, then there would be no stability, no way to have any kind of business or long term investments. I want change, wish it might be quick, but can also recognize that in all but a few cases, stability is better than going with every topsy turvey whim of society.

Kind of like how businesses can't do any planning right now because the thousands of pages of new regulations are continually being written by HHS, EPA, etc. that will cost the economy billions of dollars, yet no business knows how to plan for? With exactly zero of those regulations being approved by Congress. Yep, we have GREAT stability.

The trouble is that you want to replace a government, science-based moderate set of plans based on need with an economy based on demands of the big corporations.

Since when does our government operate on science-based plans? They run off the policies that elicit the most emotion to keep them in power. And I don't want to replace big government with big corporations; I want to replace big government with individual freedoms and choices and responsibilities. We don't need governments to choose which freedoms we are allowed to have and what we are allowed to do with our lives. We need people to be free to choose on their own because that's how an economy will actually thrive, yet you want the government to decide everything.

[PLAYER57832]

You missed the important part.. it does not change quickly. You fail to understand that is fully by intent.
As much as I dislike many of our current policies, have dislike the direction things have been turning for the past 30-40 years, if the government were allowed to change with every whim as you suggest it ought, then there would be no stability, no way to have any kind of business or long term investments. I want change, wish it might be quick, but can also recognize that in all but a few cases, stability is better than going with every topsy turvey whim of society.

Kind of like how businesses can't do any planning right now because the thousands of pages of new regulations are continually being written by HHS, EPA, etc. that will cost the economy billions of dollars, yet no business knows how to plan for? With exactly zero of those regulations being approved by Congress. Yep, we have GREAT stability.

The problem is you fail to distinguish between reasonable and sane, even necessary rules and stupid ones. Until you do that, your arguments on that topic will be groundless.

You can pretend all you like that environmental damage doesn't exist, but your children and grandchildren, not to mention you will be paying very dearly if those in power listen to folks like you.

The trouble is that you want to replace a government, science-based moderate set of plans based on need with an economy based on demands of the big corporations.

Since when does our government operate on science-based plans? They run off the policies that elicit the most emotion to keep them in power.

No, politicians respond to the public and the public very much is swayed. You are proof of that yourself.. its hardly knowledge of science that leads you to reject things like global climate change.

And I don't want to replace big government with big corporations; I want to replace big government with individual freedoms and choices and responsibilities.

That may be what you WANT, but the RESULT of what you demand is big corporations controlling everything, even more than they do now. And, all you have to do is look at history to see the truth in that.

We don't need governments to choose which freedoms we are allowed to have and what we are allowed to do with our lives. We need people to be free to choose on their own because that's how an economy will actually thrive, yet you want the government to decide everything.

Oh bull. government IS people and when government is stupid its because too many stupid people are dictating what the government should do. Folks who want to pretend that global warming is garbage, that EPA rules are "just stupid" instead of based on science and that all the safety testing done on various products is simply not necessary.

Again, your trouble is that instead of looking at details and specific situations you just want to criticize it all. The real truth is that a LOT of rules very much are based on science, in particular those enforced by the EPA, but also many rules regarding limits to fish catches, limits to runoff into streams, testing of products that go for sale, etc.

Does that mean every rule put forward in the name of science is legitimate? Of course not. Lobbiests often have more say than science, but to dismiss it all is just stupid.

[BigBallinStalin]

Oh bull. government IS people and when government is stupid its because too many stupid people are dictating what the government should do. .

Why do you think in such homogenous terms?

[Lootifer]

Dont bro, just dont.

Just do what I do when I see a NS rant: Actively make myself clean out my email inbox to avoid thinking about a reply; "A NS POST?! TIME TO DO MY EMAILS!!!!"

[BigBallinStalin]

Dont bro, just dont.

Just do what I do when I see a NS rant: Actively make myself clean out my email inbox to avoid thinking about a reply; "A NS POST?! TIME TO DO MY EMAILS!!!!"

Good idea. Profit has been increased by 10%.