Which is more important right now- a balanced budget, or low unemployment? - Page 3 - Snowboarding Forum

snowjeeper · 10-11-2011, 08:56 AM

What "sector" something is in has little to do with being efficient, it's more the size of the organization. I've worked in both public and private, and both small and large in both of those. All large organizations are inefficient.

Privatization is not effective for everything, just like publicization is not effective for everything. There are some things that the private sector just won't be good at providing - and some things they shouldn't be making a profit off of.

blondieyo · 10-14-2011, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snowjeeper

What "sector" something is in has little to do with being efficient, it's more the size of the organization. I've worked in both public and private, and both small and large in both of those. All large organizations are inefficient.

Privatization is not effective for everything, just like publicization is not effective for everything. There are some things that the private sector just won't be good at providing - and some things they shouldn't be making a profit off of.

Would you agree that the government is in fact a gigantic organisation? I do understand what you're saying and I know that the larger an organisation becomes the harder it is to organise it and keep it efficient.
Again i'll reiterate on a previous point, this is NOT my personal view of what works and what doesn't. This was me purely trying to explain the logic behind NOT spending your way out of a recession, a classical economists perspective.

snowjeeper · 10-14-2011, 09:40 PM

No doubt, I'm not saying that the government is efficient at doing something. But what I am saying is that the assumption that "private" business doing it better is completely false.

17% of the working age adults are unemployed in this country, if not for government spending (borrowing really), people would be starving out on the streets right now.

blondieyo · 10-15-2011, 03:26 AM

A flawed view? Yes, definitely. But completely false? No way. The private sector are greedy sons of bitches and by being greedy, they'll generally increase a countries GDP throuogh making bigger profits, which is what you want coming out of a recession. Just because you have a large percentage of people unemployed does not mean the private sector is inefficient. After a recession there is a significant decrease in demand so businesses will obviously cut jobs because they can't afford to employ people that are not needed. It's called cyclical unemployment.

And yes I do agree that monetary and fiscal stimulus through government spending is what's needed for America and many other countries at the moment but what I was trying to point out was the logic behind what they're doing now.

snowjeeper · 10-15-2011, 08:10 AM

Yes, they have increased profits - without hiring people. Policy needs to change to stop and prevent this from happening - but I have no idea what that needs to be. I'm sure smarter people do.

blondieyo · 10-17-2011, 02:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snowjeeper

Yes, they have increased profits - without hiring people. Policy needs to change to stop and prevent this from happening - but I have no idea what that needs to be. I'm sure smarter people do.

Alright, there is no way in hell there will ever be any policy that stipulates a business must hire people if they are making x amount of profit or their profit margin is increasing.

snowjeeper · 10-17-2011, 09:51 AM

no, but there is policy where it makes more sense to do that than horde billions of dollars and pay your useless executives 300 mill each.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

10-11-2011, 08:56 AM	#21 (permalink)
snowjeeper Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: WI Posts: 1,922	What "sector" something is in has little to do with being efficient, it's more the size of the organization. I've worked in both public and private, and both small and large in both of those. All large organizations are inefficient. Privatization is not effective for everything, just like publicization is not effective for everything. There are some things that the private sector just won't be good at providing - and some things they shouldn't be making a profit off of.

10-14-2011, 09:40 PM	#23 (permalink)
snowjeeper Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: WI Posts: 1,922	No doubt, I'm not saying that the government is efficient at doing something. But what I am saying is that the assumption that "private" business doing it better is completely false. 17% of the working age adults are unemployed in this country, if not for government spending (borrowing really), people would be starving out on the streets right now.

10-15-2011, 03:26 AM	#24 (permalink)
blondieyo Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Radelaide, Australia Posts: 79	A flawed view? Yes, definitely. But completely false? No way. The private sector are greedy sons of bitches and by being greedy, they'll generally increase a countries GDP throuogh making bigger profits, which is what you want coming out of a recession. Just because you have a large percentage of people unemployed does not mean the private sector is inefficient. After a recession there is a significant decrease in demand so businesses will obviously cut jobs because they can't afford to employ people that are not needed. It's called cyclical unemployment. And yes I do agree that monetary and fiscal stimulus through government spending is what's needed for America and many other countries at the moment but what I was trying to point out was the logic behind what they're doing now.

10-15-2011, 08:10 AM	#25 (permalink)
snowjeeper Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: WI Posts: 1,922	Yes, they have increased profits - without hiring people. Policy needs to change to stop and prevent this from happening - but I have no idea what that needs to be. I'm sure smarter people do.

10-17-2011, 09:51 AM	#27 (permalink)
snowjeeper Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: WI Posts: 1,922	no, but there is policy where it makes more sense to do that than horde billions of dollars and pay your useless executives 300 mill each.