Four million jobs in two years? FRD did it in two months.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Over the years more than 100.

Was it you who created them, though? Or did you just happen to be the one to fill a demand that was created by the market?

IMO, most employers don't have the size to manipulate the markets they deal in, so they don't really have the ability to create jobs (and IMO, many companies that are large enough to manipulate the market sometimes use it in ways that eliminate jobs rather than create them). That's something that's really within the capability of governments and the absolutely largest of corporations, although even then, they're much less significant than the simple net effect of the decisions of all consumers.

 

[Reverend Rick]

You mean on the government-built and maintained Alcan Highway?

No, I was thinking of private aircraft.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, I was thinking of private aircraft.

Hmm. I don't know about Alaska, but much of the cargo on the "private" aircraft flying to the Canadian north is subsidized by the federal government. If the people up there had to rely solely on private, for-profit business to meet their needs, they wouldn't be able to make it work.

 

[dust1n]

Go to Alaska sometime and get back to me.

Well, I can't, so how about telling about a couple of private transportation contracts in Alaska that still operate?

That's why Obama's stimulus plan cost tax payers almost 100K per job.

You obviously did even read my original post... NO ONE IS SUPPORTING THE OBAMA STIMULUS PLAN BECAUSE IT DOES NOT OPERATE LIKE FDR'S PLAN. The government is spending the money either way, ******* deal with it. The government is spending money.... when has it been useful to use contractors, when has it been useful to use government?

Wouldn't be it be WORTH a slightly smaller cost from the government at times, especially in times when jobs NEED to be created NOW?

... Over the years more than 100.

... Oh, a 100. That was about my guess. It compares little to four million jobs in two years huh? 100 new jobs in Pensacola wouldn't even affect my community as a whole, let alone "over the years"..

 

[Alceste]

There are positive and negative aspects to both contracting out government projects to private interests and operating them directly.

On the one hand, the bidding process CAN keep costs controlled, however this is completely dependent on the honesty and integrity of the parties to the contract and the open-ness of the bidding process. The no-bid defense contracts to Dick Cheney's companies and associates during the war is an example of how outsourcing can go horribly wrong. Because the books of the government, unlike those of private business, are open to public scrutiny which can result in terrible political consequences, they have at least as strong an incentive to control costs as the private sector.

Since the West began its love affair with outsourcing to essential public service provision and infrastructure (trains, energy, ferries, etc) to the private sector, there have been nothing but scandals, a deterioration of the quality of service and skyrocketing costs for consumers. In the UK, in the place of a national railway that was once the envy of the world, they now have a patchwork of private trains. They're dirty, run down, never on time, a trip from point A to point B may require doing business with several private companies and partnerships, and the tickets cost ten times as much as before. To add insult to injury they are heavily subsidized by British taxpayers.

I favour a mixed economy, where the government uses a combination of private sector bidding for short term projects like construction, but directly supervises permanent public sector requirements, such as maintenance, oversight, regulation enforcement and service provision.

Of course, whether a project is open to private sector bidding or directly implemented by the public sector, the cost-effectiveness and quality should be determined by a strong regulatory framework, transparency and fairness.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Was it you who created them, though? Or did you just happen to be the one to fill a demand that was created by the market?

I filled a demand created by the market. :sad:

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Since the West began its love affair with outsourcing to essential public service provision and infrastructure (trains, energy, ferries, etc) to the private sector, there have been nothing but scandals, a deterioration of the quality of service and skyrocketing costs for consumers. In the UK, in the place of a national railway that was once the envy of the world, they now have a patchwork of private trains. They're dirty, run down, never on time, a trip from point A to point B may require doing business with several private companies and partnerships, and the tickets cost ten times as much as before. To add insult to injury they are heavily subsidized by British taxpayers.

I wouldn't say it's been nothing but scandals. A couple of years ago, I got to hear a seminar talk on AFP (alternative financing & procurement, the umbrella term that covers things like public-private partnerships, as well as other schemes) in the UK. The speaker, who was with Her Majesty's Treasury IIRC, was pretty frank about early projects where things went wrong and lessons were learned, but he also covered a number of later projects that were quite positive and have led to innovation.

For instance, he talked about one project where municipal streetlights were privatized (in London, maybe? Can't remember for sure) and he pointed out that under private operation, the lights got converted to high-efficiency LED lighting way earlier than could have been done under the public system... but because it was in the company's best interest to reduce their energy expenditure and because they had the certainty of a long contract that let them know they'd be in the deal long enough to recoup the investment, they went ahead and converted all the lights right away, creating a substantial energy savings in the process... and the environmental benefits that go along with this.

I favour a mixed economy, where the government uses a combination of private sector bidding for short term projects like construction, but directly supervises permanent public sector requirements, such as maintenance, oversight, regulation enforcement and service provision.

Of course, whether a project is open to private sector bidding or directly implemented by the public sector, the cost-effectiveness and quality should be determined by a strong regulatory framework, transparency and fairness.

I see two good approaches to private involvement in public-sector projects:

- first, by looking at risk and cost. The private sector is better at managing certain risks (and therefore costs) better than the public sector, and vice versa. For any given project, if you can look at it and figure out which risks are better and more cheaply handled by a private company, then these are the places where it makes sense to get them involved. This also means that indescriminate privatization isn't a good idea.

- second, as a tradeoff. Often, AFP arrangements are used where the government simply doesn't have the cash to pay for a project up front. From a cash flow perspective, it can sometimes be a good thing for them to convert what would be a very large up-front expenditure and spread it out over years or decades. This is what was done, for instance, with most of Highway 407 in Toronto: the private consortium builds and maintains the highway at their own cost, but on the understanding that they'll be the ones to receive the toll revenue for a set period after the highway is built.

But in these deals, I think it's important to remember that it is a tradeoff, and that it isn't free. Just like a bond issue or a loan, the government's going to end up paying something in "interest". Which isn't to say it's never a good idea, but just that it's a cost that needs to be considered when weighing options.

 

[Reverend Rick]

... Oh, a 100. That was about my guess. It compares little to four million jobs in two years huh? 100 new jobs in Pensacola wouldn't even affect my community as a whole, let alone "over the years"..

Did you believe that I was this great big business mogul dust1n? I'm just one little business. The thing is we small business owners are the engine that drives the economy. I'm just one of many spokes in the wheel.

I need to address why things worked so well in the past. The government built something that brought us into the future, a power grid.

If we spent alot of money on something the people could use, there would be value.

I believe we can both agree that the government spends too much money and we small people don't see much value.

If my generation was to leave you much debt, but you had sound infrastructure and high speed rail, at least you had something your generation could use to show for your debt.

Just like if you become a heart surgeon and make millions a year, your student debt would have been worth it.

The situation as I see it right now is many graduates will have a useless degree and a high amount of student debt with no way to repay it.

Our generation has squandered our tax dollars and borrowed even more money for wasteful things that did not help you and left you with a crumbling infrastructure and a mountainous debt.