Successful state run enterprise

Originally posted by finnegan
[b] The idea that taxes paid from profits are not justified by benefits received is just right wing ideology and a plain lie.

[b]

Benefits, like being taxed to fund goobermint run state enterprises which are in competition with your own business.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Benefits, like being taxed to fund goobermint run state enterprises which are in competition with your own business.

Not only immoral, but perverse.

Originally posted by finnegan
Yes both of his heroes - Rand and Mises - claim to have constructed a complex theory from fundamental axioms. Mises for example claims to have constructed his economic theories on the principles of psychology. The fact is that there is no such construction - the claims are spurious and not supported by the work of those two heroes, who neither assembled a ...[text shortened]... hey are fraudulent clowns.

This is the norm who wants to lecture me on the nature of reason.

Both Rand and Mises admitted to human imperfection, and their disciples have carried on and corrected their shortcomings, because they don't toss rationalism aside, because some aspect doesn't meet up with empiricism. They continue to search rationally for the truth, the reason why measurements aren't confirming their propositions.

"Mises for example claims to have constructed his economic theories on the principles of psychology."

Before you speak on Mises constructs you ought to read "Human Action" and not speak from ignorance.

Originally posted by normbenign
Both Rand and Mises admitted to human imperfection, and their disciples have carried on and corrected their shortcomings, because they don't toss rationalism aside, because some aspect doesn't meet up with empiricism. They continue to search rationally for the truth, the reason why measurements aren't confirming their propositions.

"Mises for example ...[text shortened]... ore you speak on Mises constructs you ought to read "Human Action" and not speak from ignorance.

Yeah, why toss """rationalism""" aside when it's factually wrong?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Yeah, why toss """rationalism""" aside when it's factually wrong?

because they don't toss rationalism aside, because some aspect doesn't meet up with empiricism. They continue to search rationally for the truth, the reason why measurements aren't confirming their propositions.

You couldn't make it up!

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Yeah, why toss """rationalism""" aside when it's factually wrong?

Why toss empiricism aside when it is contradictory, and wrong? Empirical data can as easily be wrong as a prioris rationally arrived at. The difference is that empiricists tend not to look any farther, rejecting rationalism. The rationalist looks deeper, for those missing variables, and builds on past knowledge, instead of instantly accepting the latest data set as fully valid.

Originally posted by finnegan
because they don't toss rationalism aside, because some aspect doesn't meet up with empiricism. They continue to search rationally for the truth, the reason why measurements aren't confirming their propositions.

You couldn't make it up!

You could if you were an empiricist. When one data set contradicts another, you simply wink and look the other way.

One might ask, what is the definition of success to a state run enterprise?

If a program is to reduce poverty, and it does not, and poverty worsens and spreads, is that program successful?

If public schools are supposed to insure that even the poor and minorities get a decent basic education, but inner city schools are failing to produce many graduates, is that program successful?

If after another five years of Obama care, there are no more uninsured, and everyone doesn't get all the health care they need, will that program be deemed successful.

If there is another banking crisis in the future, will the Dodd/Frank banking reform be deemed successful?

Are public housing projects a success? How about section 8?

Just what is the criteria to determine success or failure of State run enterprises? Is it the stated goals, or is it the good intentions? What is success? Is it still a success, if the goal is met, at a cost greatly exceeding the projections? Would it have even been passed if the original costs were properly known?

Originally posted by normbenign
One might ask, what is the definition of success to a state run enterprise?

If a program is to reduce poverty, and it does not, and poverty worsens and spreads, is that program successful?

If public schools are supposed to insure that even the poor and minorities get a decent basic education, but inner city schools are failing to produce many gradu ...[text shortened]... ding the projections? Would it have even been passed if the original costs were properly known?

Arguably there is a single definition of success for a private enterprise, which is to generate wealth for the owners. The legal duty to prioritise shareholder interests reflects this narrow conception. In practice, goals can be more sophisticated, for example to concentrate on market share at the expense of immediate profit, but that is the reality for Anglo Saxon economies.

For public sector enterprises the goals are broader than this. In the case of the French nationalisations discussed above, the return on investment actually did meet market standards. However, such enterprises are really committed to and judged by wider responsibilities which are best described under "stakeholder theory."

Consider the example of Exxon in New Jersey, which is known to have caused environmental damage requiring some $9bn in public costs to clear that up. We know they have evaded paying that to the state, but given the governor a few hundred million dollars to plug his state budget, while ignoring and walking away from the environmental cleanup costs now facing the state. That action protects their shareholders and improves profitability for Exxon while harming the public on a vast scale.

Issues like this demonstrate the urgent necessity to run enterprises of any sector with greater concern for stakeholders other than shareholders. The pressure will not come from a business like Exxon, so where will it come from or are we to tolerate this behaviour?

It is possible to build stakeholder concerns into private enterprise, as for example in Germany's model for industrial management so I am not arguing that only public enterprises can achieve it. However, what I am arguing or demonstrating is that the measures for success for a public sector enterprise are typically far more sophisticated and demanding than for a private company.

Originally posted by vivify
While I personally am not against the public sector, I should remind you that the issue isn't whether or not state-run businesses can be economically successful, but whether or not the state can be trusted to not abuse rights of the people. The fear (mostly held by U.S. conservatives) is that the more we really on government, the more certain it is that a democracy will erode into some type authoritarian state.

As a U.S. citizen, I feel my government is now an oligarchy. Oh we have socialism all right but it is primarily for the financial sector. If their investments go well, they win. If their investments go south, the tax payer picks up the tab. The big investors have to be incredibly dumb, Bernie Madoff, to loose. Wealthy conservatives are destroying the middle class in the U.S. The U.S. economy is consumer based. With fewer and fewer folks able to purchase products, more jobs will be lost as it is a healthy, wealthy middle class that creates jobs, not businesses. If you look only at Wall Street, the U.S. economy seems strong. Look more closely at the shrinking middle class, the cost of higher education, the numbers of educated workers unemployed or underemployed and the picture looks more like 1928, just before the great depression.

Originally posted by vivify
Doesn't it make sense that government-run businesses get more funding from the government? Our that tax-payer money would be an advantage for them over private sector businesses that don't benefit from tax-payer cash? Or that government-run businesses could have loopholes that benefit them in ways the private sector wouldn't see?

Well, in the U.S., big business money has been very successful in twisting rules and regulations and tax laws to favor their industries. Money buys political power. Citizens have a far greater chance of keeping a fair playing ground in a democracy than an oligarchy. I trust democratic socialism far more than the kind of unfettered capitalism we have in the U.S.

Originally posted by finnegan
Arguably there is a single definition of success for a private enterprise, which is to generate wealth for the owners. The legal duty to prioritise shareholder interests reflects this narrow conception. In practice, goals can be more sophisticated, for example to concentrate on market share at the expense of immediate profit, but that is the reality for ...[text shortened]... sector enterprise are typically far more sophisticated and demanding than for a private company.

I don't find fault with any of you factual citations. The private owner has a single goal, to produce profits, but how to do it is the key. Of course, he must produce a good which people want, and hopefully need. He must do so in a manner that doesn't become offensive or oppressive of potential customers.

I believe the worst offenses in private enterprise happen when the public and private sectors become too closely melded. Then the too big to fail complex kicks in, and the public ends up needing the private concern so that it can't just let it fail.

Originally posted by Phranny
Well, in the U.S., big business money has been very successful in twisting rules and regulations and tax laws to favor their industries. Money buys political power. Citizens have a far greater chance of keeping a fair playing ground in a democracy than an oligarchy. I trust democratic socialism far more than the kind of unfettered capitalism we have in the U.S.

The question on political power, and money buying it, is who is buying and who is selling?

Ideally, if Congress had little to sell, there would be no buyers. We've seen that not only can government carve out niches for their favorite businesses, but they can bail them out when TSHTF.

Originally posted by Phranny
Well, in the U.S., big business money has been very successful in twisting rules and regulations and tax laws to favor their industries. Money buys political power. Citizens have a far greater chance of keeping a fair playing ground in a democracy than an oligarchy. I trust democratic socialism far more than the kind of unfettered capitalism we have in the U.S.

Unfettered capitalism is fantasy land, not the USA. Democracies and oligarchies both have problems. Neither is particularly admirable.

Originally posted by normbenign
Unfettered capitalism is fantasy land, not the USA. Democracies and oligarchies both have problems. Neither is particularly admirable.

Mr seemingly sensible is not a fan of democracy.