Post Reply
Page 4 of 8  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8 Next
Switch to Forum Live View replacing private companies with public workers to save money
3 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2011 - 11:34AM #31
Captainmarvel
Posts: 765

One bomber: design to finish= EIGHT years.Thats ONE bomber...now how about a fleet and how about other types of aircraft for the military? Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2011 - 11:39AM #32
Jstanl
Posts: 5,485

Apr 5, 2011 -- 9:49AM, Father_Oblivion wrote:


Apr 5, 2011 -- 9:44AM, Captainmarvel wrote:


Even Building Bombers creates Jobs!...or don't they count cause you dont like em!


 




That is government subsidized jobs and government subsidized profits! A double subsidy, much worse than a directly hired government worker!





In my experience in 18 years with a government contractor, our fee (profit - cost plus fee contract) was initially planned at 2% but with change orders (that invariably increased the work volume) that fee invariabely came out to 1% by the time the work was completed with the original job doubling during the life of the contract.  And the manager's salary and expenses came out of the fee.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2011 - 11:58AM #33
amcolph
Posts: 17,313

Apr 5, 2011 -- 11:34AM, Captainmarvel wrote:


One bomber: design to finish= EIGHT years.Thats ONE bomber...now how about a fleet and how about other types of aircraft for the military? Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmm?




And once the bomber (or any military aircraft) is finished, it's finished.


An airliner or air cargo plane, once finished, creates wealth and jobs for many years.


I can see why you are having difficulty with this--it's part of a concept called "free enterprise,"  something conservatives haven't had much use for in recent years.


The object is not just to transfer government money into the hands of those you approve of (rather than those you don't approve of, like the poor) but to create wealth.


 

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2011 - 12:12PM #34
Captainmarvel
Posts: 765

No...actually once the bomber is finished...there is MORE! I know you find this hard to grasp but ....it then has 10-15 years of Spare and Replacement PARTS Manufacturing(of course also design and equipment upgrades too) Try just try to grasp this,if possible.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2011 - 12:30PM #35
amcolph
Posts: 17,313

Apr 5, 2011 -- 12:12PM, Captainmarvel wrote:


No...actually once the bomber is finished...there is MORE! I know you find this hard to grasp but ....it then has 10-15 years of Spare and Replacement PARTS Manufacturing(of course also design and equipment upgrades too) Try just try to grasp this,if possible.




Absolutely.  There is more--more capital investment which doesn't create wealth.  You have also forgotten to mention fuel cost and wages for the aircrews, plus hangars and airfields, and so on.  All without a fare-paying passenger or billable cargo anywhere in sight.


Now, I know we want to spend the money in this way because we think we need the military power,


but your argument that it is better for the economy than an equivalent sum spent by private enterprise to create a civil aviation industry is a cruel joke, and if you actually believe it yourself you're a fool.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2011 - 12:36PM #36
Jstanl
Posts: 5,485

There is no way that government spending creates wealth.  It always cost more than it produces.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2011 - 12:37PM #37
Captainmarvel
Posts: 765

 Thats like saying light bulb manufacturers are the cause of enegry crisis...stove manufacturrs,boiler manufaturers etc etc all are the cause of the energy crisis and thus we should all cook on hot rocks Ha!. The question was creating jobs,in case you forgot.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2011 - 12:43PM #38
Christianlib
Posts: 21,848

Apr 5, 2011 -- 12:36PM, Jstanl wrote:


There is no way that government spending creates wealth.  It always cost more than it produces.




You are mixing up terms, and talking as if "wealth" was the total aim of a society.  The mass of people are more concerned with daily living security, and with jobs that allow them to support a family.  THOSE things, under the right circumstances government spending can and has done, and can stimulate the economy so the gov. spending can end.


Accumulation of wealth in a few hands is not a legitimate aim of a free and just society.


 


And, BTW, it appears that "government spending", in the form of "bailout money", DID create wealth for a few Wall Streeters.  So, I am not sure you have a valid argument in either direction.

Democrats think the glass is half full.
Republicans think the glass is theirs.
Libertarians want to break the glass, because they think a conspiracy created it.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2011 - 12:44PM #39
Fodaoson
Posts: 11,147

Apr 5, 2011 -- 12:36PM, Jstanl wrote:


There is no way that government spending creates wealth.  It always cost more than it produces.





 No spending,public or private, creates wealth.   it creates jobs  that create income  and some use that income to create wealth which is the accumulation of income above that used for maintence of daily life. 


Wealth is accumulated.   

“I seldom make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect.” Edward Gibbon
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2011 - 4:30PM #40
Father_Oblivion
Posts: 11,632

Apr 5, 2011 -- 11:25AM, Jstanl wrote:


Apr 4, 2011 -- 10:53AM, Father_Oblivion wrote:


Apr 4, 2011 -- 8:48AM, davelaw40 wrote:


its counter-intuitive


increase competition drive down costs


public employees = less competition





Not really. Among utilities, the expense of proper maintenance isn't sacrificed resulting in lower long term operating costs. Privately run utilities commonly cut corners as much as possible. I know this from first hand experience. Publicly run utilities are directly accountable to the voters, while privately owned ones are not and are trying to turn a profit, while that is not one of the goals of a publicly held utility.


I have no reason to think that there is a large difference in other public/privatized fields.





You are absolutely wrong.  Maintenance is chronically neglected in our management culture, both in public and private sectors.  But the worst by far is in the public sector.  The problem is funding.  Politicians will not fund maintenance because it does not buy votes.  They spend their money on new projects that get them publicity.


OTOH; the private sector is more motivated to protect what they have (keep it operating) because new and replacement cost come straight from the profit margin and government tax laws do not encourage new money spent on infrastructure/investment.


Also private sector employees are more productive.


Further, contractors can be used when needed and sent back to the shop when they are not.  Public employess become a permenent overhead that are there whether they are needed or not.




No, I am not absolutely wrong.


As you mentioned, publicly owned utilities cut maintenance when they are not properly funded but you fail to mention that most publicly owned utilities do not depend on a budget from a political entity, but rather collect income from rate charges which are absolutely far lower than privately owned utilities, who even with their higher rate charges will still cut corners on maintenance. I know this from personal experience with such companies as PG&E, Entergy and Alameda Municipal Power while keeping my finger on the pulse of the industry.


In the private sector, new and replacement costs come from rate hikes, not from profit. Pay attention, you will see them all over the country and that is specifically what rate hikes are for. Never do they cut into their precious profits, and if that means needing a new plant because they didn't keep up the maintenance on the old one, they will let it deteriorate to the point of no return and then cry about needing to replace it and request a rate hike. This is how it is done industry wide, and I have seen it first hand several times.


Maintenance workers are needed on a constant basis, so your remark about sending private contractors 'back to the shop' doesn't make any sense in the context of utility maintenance. And lastly, private sector employees are not more productive. Oh, you may see more physical activity but that means nothing. If you have already finished the project, there is no reason to run around like a whacko looking for something to do to please your overlords. The best maintenance workers look like they are doing nothing, because the maintenance is done and the system is performing flawlessly.

The important thing to remember about American history is that it is fictional, a charcoal-sketched simplicity for the children or the easily bored. For the most part it is uninspected, unimagined, unthought, a representative of the thing and not the thing itself. It is a fine fiction...
Neil Gaiman
'American Gods'

‎"Ignorance of ignorance, then, is that self-satisfied state of unawareness in which man, knowing nothing outside the limited area of his physical senses, bumptiously declares there is nothing more to know! He who knows no life save the physical is merely ignorant; but he who declares physical life to be all-important and elevates it to the position of supreme reality--such a one is ignorant of his own ignorance."
- Manly Palmer Hall
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 4 of 8  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook