That would be fascinating to find out. It would be such a badass move, too, if one of them were to give everything away to show they could do it again. I think it actually would be fine for quite a few of them. Their reputation would get them in so many doors and get them so many investors for whatever they get into after the big giveaway. To really do this experiment well, they would need to get plastic surgery and change their identity so they can really have a fresh start.
It would also be interesting to see the effect it would have on whatever they were doing before their exit. I guess it really depends on who gets their shares/power. If it goes to the government, then in most cases, things would probably get worse, I’d imagine. If it somehow gets evenly distributed amongst the world’s population, that could be interesting. How would amazon fair if we all got 1/8B of Bezos shares? That would be quite interesting.
You’re a little biased against public sector, and seem to be in favor or privatization. I assume your incorrect understanding of public versus private sector efficiency is based on the cliche that public workers are so lazy or whatever.
But here’s an interesting article discussing the issue. I myself am biased against private sector in favor of the benefits of public sector efficiencies (no profit motive for example). But it’s an interesting article.
What did I say that made you think I have an “incorrect understanding of public versus private sector”?
Do you mean that because I think the government wouldn’t be good at running a business that I misunderstood something? The us government is famously bad about spending outrageous amounts for simple things. Cups that cost over $1,000, toilet seats for over $10,000… there’s tons of things like this. That may be fine when you don’t have to worry about being profitable, but it won’t fly when trying to run a business.
IIRC the reason military spending is so extreme is because the US military is required by law to have the paperwork to prove their entire supply chain is domestic, as part of a worst case readiness thing. Could be wrong though, not like I’ve really looked into it all that much.
The US military gets so much stuff from other countries. There was a “Buy American Act” about 100 years ago, which still stands, but it allows for so many exceptions that get used very often. There have been a few other similar acts since then, but they all include well-used exceptions.
What does this have to do with comparing the public us military to a similar private organization?
When the service provided is influencing world politics and securing our country, I don’t think efficiency means the same thing. I also don’t think there are any other private sector businesses that could compare to us military. And even if there are, I would assume that all of their workers were trained by the us military.
I mean, I guess the us military is the largest military in the world apparently even if you added up all the other militaries together.
So by your logic there is no other private or public military that is better than the United States, but their goal is being the best, so but, and
If you are suggesting that the military of a government can be better run by a private organization, such as a corporation…. I mean, I guess you are saying that oligarchy and corporate rule is better than democracy?
To start with such a large organization won’t benefit your argument in any way
, and I suppose the service of the military is being the best?
By what metric do you think the US has a military larger than all other militaries combined? The firepower index puts the US at the top, but most other metrics don’t. Even with the firepower index, though, no stretch of the imagination would put the US above all other militaries combined.
The reason the US military is as powerful as it is is not because it is such a well run organization. It is because it gets so much money from taxes. It has nothing to do with governments being able to run things more efficiently than for-profit companies. So many issues in the world are a direct result of how hyper efficient companies are. Running more efficiently doesn’t mean it is better for the world. The opposite is true.
Well, my whole point is that just that government doesn’t usually do as good at running things as private companies. Another big example would be NASA vs. SpaceX. I think it is much easier to come up with examples of private companies getting more bang for their buck than governments. My hunch would be that it has to do with profit incentives. Government workers generally get a set salary whereas private companies stand to gain a whole lot more if they have big innovations.
Also, oftentimes, there is an incentive for government agencies to get involved in worse deals if it means siphoning money off to friends, whereas this makes less sense in private companies.
That would be fascinating to find out. It would be such a badass move, too, if one of them were to give everything away to show they could do it again. I think it actually would be fine for quite a few of them. Their reputation would get them in so many doors and get them so many investors for whatever they get into after the big giveaway. To really do this experiment well, they would need to get plastic surgery and change their identity so they can really have a fresh start.
It would also be interesting to see the effect it would have on whatever they were doing before their exit. I guess it really depends on who gets their shares/power. If it goes to the government, then in most cases, things would probably get worse, I’d imagine. If it somehow gets evenly distributed amongst the world’s population, that could be interesting. How would amazon fair if we all got 1/8B of Bezos shares? That would be quite interesting.
You’re a little biased against public sector, and seem to be in favor or privatization. I assume your incorrect understanding of public versus private sector efficiency is based on the cliche that public workers are so lazy or whatever.
But here’s an interesting article discussing the issue. I myself am biased against private sector in favor of the benefits of public sector efficiencies (no profit motive for example). But it’s an interesting article.
https://theconversation.com/pursuing-efficiency-in-the-public-sector-why-privatisation-is-not-necessarily-the-answer-13142
What did I say that made you think I have an “incorrect understanding of public versus private sector”?
Do you mean that because I think the government wouldn’t be good at running a business that I misunderstood something? The us government is famously bad about spending outrageous amounts for simple things. Cups that cost over $1,000, toilet seats for over $10,000… there’s tons of things like this. That may be fine when you don’t have to worry about being profitable, but it won’t fly when trying to run a business.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/opinion/pentagon-budget-military-spending-waste.html
IIRC the reason military spending is so extreme is because the US military is required by law to have the paperwork to prove their entire supply chain is domestic, as part of a worst case readiness thing. Could be wrong though, not like I’ve really looked into it all that much.
The US military gets so much stuff from other countries. There was a “Buy American Act” about 100 years ago, which still stands, but it allows for so many exceptions that get used very often. There have been a few other similar acts since then, but they all include well-used exceptions.
What does this have to do with comparing the public us military to a similar private organization?
When the service provided is influencing world politics and securing our country, I don’t think efficiency means the same thing. I also don’t think there are any other private sector businesses that could compare to us military. And even if there are, I would assume that all of their workers were trained by the us military.
I’m not sure the United States military is the example you think it is
You’re so cryptic. I don’t know if it is intentional or not, but you really don’t answer clearly or explain your reasoning.
I mean, I guess the us military is the largest military in the world apparently even if you added up all the other militaries together.
So by your logic there is no other private or public military that is better than the United States, but their goal is being the best, so but, and
If you are suggesting that the military of a government can be better run by a private organization, such as a corporation…. I mean, I guess you are saying that oligarchy and corporate rule is better than democracy?
To start with such a large organization won’t benefit your argument in any way
, and I suppose the service of the military is being the best?
By what metric do you think the US has a military larger than all other militaries combined? The firepower index puts the US at the top, but most other metrics don’t. Even with the firepower index, though, no stretch of the imagination would put the US above all other militaries combined.
The reason the US military is as powerful as it is is not because it is such a well run organization. It is because it gets so much money from taxes. It has nothing to do with governments being able to run things more efficiently than for-profit companies. So many issues in the world are a direct result of how hyper efficient companies are. Running more efficiently doesn’t mean it is better for the world. The opposite is true.
So, my question would be what private company are you trying to compare to the United States military?
Well, my whole point is that just that government doesn’t usually do as good at running things as private companies. Another big example would be NASA vs. SpaceX. I think it is much easier to come up with examples of private companies getting more bang for their buck than governments. My hunch would be that it has to do with profit incentives. Government workers generally get a set salary whereas private companies stand to gain a whole lot more if they have big innovations.
Also, oftentimes, there is an incentive for government agencies to get involved in worse deals if it means siphoning money off to friends, whereas this makes less sense in private companies.