Really am not interested in discussing this, huge waste of time - points raised in the article are valid. Read the last paragraph do some research on "Wartime Armies" and "Peace Time Armies" and the transitions from one to the other and the effects on moral, discharge rates, suicide rates etc. It has nothing to do with if Defence was run by Govt or civilian industry, budget cuts and transition to a Peace time Army - you would be in the same situation, worse off if it was civilian run.
That's a shame because it has everything to do with Defence being managed by government (and every other essential service). And it's interesting you use the term "civilian run", implying that a private business would have unqualified managers at the helm. That indeed would be a disaster, but then again it would depend upon the capacity and talents of the entrepreneur. These businesses would more likely be operated by one of the more visionary colleagues of yours (maybe the very same with whom you intend to share this post with and get a laugh together, you know, the quiet intelligent guy in the corner who pretends to follow all the older guys because it's the done thing :/ ) possessing both entrepreneurial capabilities and "on the ground" experience - maybe they might employ you :lol: . It might even be me (totally unlikely though) if I had enough capital at my disposal and had a team of experienced personnel i could rely on. Anyway, I'll go on without you, maybe one of your mates will read this and it may ring a bell with them. Austrian Economists hold the view that government run monopolies are wasteful of scant resources, primarily (as bored silver has quoted) because there are no price indicators due to a lack of competition, which means governments will always pay too much for essential services. Private industry has at its core the requirement to make a profit and morale is a critical factor in maintaining a profit because a workforce that lacks morale will be unenthusiastic and lack motivation. A business that has a workforce that is unenthusiastic and lacking in motivation will go out of business. This is a natural and welcome factor of the free market as it helps meet consumer's needs and goes a long way in ensuring resources are allocated more intelligently. Morale declines when employee's psychological rewards are increasingly alienated from their working lives. This results in dissatisfaction and a decline in productivity. The private business owner recognising distress in the workplace has at his disposal a choice of paths to take, he can either sack his workers, or ignore their low morale (and risk the loss of profits, loss of his workforce to his competitors and bankruptcy), or he can enact workplace reform which improves his worker's morale and hopefully his position in the market place and his profit line. If he doesn't enact workplace reform, his competitors will take advantage of his weakened position and increase their profit line. A government monopoly has no competition, it doesn't have to concern itself with armed services personnel joining another armed service. It doesn't have to concern itself with a profit line. And because it doesn't have a profit line or any competitors, and because the managers of these government monopolies have no personal financial accountability the greatest determiner of price and service ie profit and loss is glaringly lacking from such organisations. In competition there are always losers and there are winners, when competition is void, there are no winners or losers as there is no yardstick by which to measure excellence. The existence of a government army or police force or fire department or hospital or school is in no way itself an indicator of success, it is only when competitors are present that offer alternative services that a measure of success can be made. This is denied under our present system for many essential services. Back to our armed service personnel who have low morale - in a competitive industry the employees have one very powerful tool which can be exercised as a measure of last resort if conditions under their present employer become untenable. That is the decision to leave and seek employment with another provider. That tool of last resort is not available to our armed services personnel, instead, they either remain and bear the decline in working conditions, or they leave and change jobs.
Just to state the obvious. While Businesses (particularly big businesses) can afford to have bad morale for a few years, government departments can afford to have it for decades.
Not taxing at all...... Apparently "I have extreme respect of knowledge and intelligence will motivate me to explain myself to another person who I feel is deserving of the effort." Basically I don't want to waste to much of my time. I suppose it is one of my shortfalls.
I've got no idea what you are fkn talking about with your quote. Anyway, did you show your mates the posts? What did they say? Bet you didn't.
Didn't show them because I have not seen them, not high on my list of priorities to drive over there just to show them what you posted when I see them they will get a laugh out of it. The quote is from ....... Don't worry about it, I am going to make a cuppa......
Didn't think you did. You do realise the more intelligent amongst them will go away and think........"Mmmmmmmm, he's got a point." Nah, I'm kidding myself, you probably won't. :lol:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/14/u...-to-save-detroits-art-collection.html?hp&_r=0 Foundations Aim to Save Pensions in Detroit Crisis National and local philanthropic foundations have committed $330 million toward a deal to avoid cuts to Detroit retirees' pensions and to save the Detroit Institute of Arts' renowned collection, federal mediators involved in the city's bankruptcy proceedings announced on Monday.
Privatise it ! "If it moves private it, if it doesn't move private it. Since everything either moves or doesn't move..."
Defence budget: Obviously of importance to Australia's national security and sensitive - that's why it is exempt from audit. The problem though is that without a price indicator ie profit/loss it is impossible to determine whether we are getting value for money or whether our taxes are being wasted as there is no public accountability of public money.
If this was a private road the media story would be very different and there would be community uproar and government disgust. Instead, it's synonymous with government disgrace and mismanagement. http://www.freep.com/article/201401...closed-deteriorated-emergency-Gov-Rick-Snyder
Interesting site. Tried to find out a bit about its history but there wasn't much info. Found this though:
@bordie, it appears we've lost most of our followers (or opponents) :lol: but I'll persevere nontheless, not that you need me to explain this to you. It is highly unlikely under a privatised system of roads that a scenario such as the one above would ever eventuate. This is because the reality of profit/loss in a free marketplace is the major incentive businesses have for providing customers with a quality service and one that would mostly exceed that which was provided by governments and at a cheaper cost. Failure to maintain a bridge and it's subsequent closure would have a direct impact upon the company's bottom line immediately and in the future as customers would be cautious of using that facility and competitors would thereby gain a market advantage. Market share has no impact upon a government monopoly therefore loss of trade or a closure of a facility has little impact upon the public business management, with the exception that it places greater strain upon other publicly funded infrastructure. A commercial enterprise would try to avoid at all cost the loss of an integral part of its business through careful budgeting of maintenance procedures. Unfortunately, such procedures are often lacking under government provision of services, as the Michigan State Governor's call for extra funding has shown. So what faces the taxpayers of Michigan now and the 20000+ commuters with the loss of a vital link in their transport hub? What is most likely to happen is that a tender will be issued for the repair of the bridge. As it will be viewed as a critical need, speed will be the most important factor in the selection of a tender, cost will most likely be the least. As a result, it is likely that the taxpayers will pay through the nose for the repair of the bridge, far in excess of the realistic price as would be determined in a free market and an already stressed public transport purse will be put under even greater strain.
There's a few stories of hope coming out of Detroit, all of them involve private enterprise, none of them involve government. I'm not going to repeat stories of woe about Detroit, there are enough out there and we all know who the major culprit is in the City's failure to respond to economic crisis, just a few snippets of how businesses and the municipal government plan to make their way forward. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25509923 And probably the only only true economic statement made by any government in the entire world: http://www.detroitmi.gov/Portals/0/docs/EM/Reports/City of Detroit Proposal for Creditors1.pdf p3 Most of the document indicates how a new municipal government will implement new workforce regulations and financial and systemic reforms to operations and infrastructure. There is only one reference to privatisation in the document that I could find after skimming over most of the contents: http://www.detroitmi.gov/Portals/0/docs/EM/Reports/City of Detroit Proposal for Creditors1.pdf p94
The capitalism thread is getting a heap of attention and that's great, so it's time ti trot out the Detroit thread. They are intricately linked you see. On government police services: Hans Hermann-Hoppe
