Privitization efforts by the City of Chicago

[Balta1701]

And it doesn't strike you that governmental ones happen all of the time?

Read post 72. I think they happen all the time in both cases. You argued that they're uncommon in the business world and common in politics, I think they're common in both. I feel I see it all the time in the corporate world, from the types of deals/contracts that companies sign to the type of hiring decisions they make to these bonus payouts.

[southsider2k5]

Read post 72. I think they happen all the time in both cases. You argued that they're uncommon in the business world and common in politics, I think they're common in both. I feel I see it all the time in the corporate world, from the types of deals/contracts that companies sign to the type of hiring decisions they make to these bonus payouts.

 

Actually I never said that.

[Balta1701]

Actually I never said that.

In that case, I have absolutely no idea what this means.

 

As opposed to governments who give sweetheart deals in exchange for cash? I think there is actually more accountability in the corporate sectors, because at least they have to answer to shareholders. Judging by re-election rates, the government doesn't seem to have that problem.

 

[southsider2k5]

In that case, I have absolutely no idea what this means.

 

It means that there is more accountability for these things in the private sector, because if they don't work out, people lose their jobs. In the government they get re-elected because they are providing for their district.

[Balta1701]

It means that there is more accountability for these things in the private sector, because if they don't work out, people lose their jobs. In the government they get re-elected because they are providing for their district.

So there's more accountability for sweetheart deals in the corporate sector, but they happen with an equal frequency as the public sector? Ok, if you say so.

[southsider2k5]

So there's more accountability for sweetheart deals in the corporate sector, but they happen with an equal frequency as the public sector? Ok, if you say so.

 

Oh good god. Nevermind. I quit.

[kapkomet]

Oh good god. Nevermind. I quit.

 

 

You know Balta, all you do is keep moving the carrot. You can never debate on face value anymore.

 

As I said in the other thread.

 

"Government Saves". That's all.

[Balta1701]

You know Balta, all you do is keep moving the carrot. You can never debate on face value anymore.

Fine, you want to keep piling on. All I was doing was responding to his exact words. If you're unable to defend the very things you say, then don't say them.

[kapkomet]

Fine, you want to keep piling on. All I was doing was responding to his exact words. If you're unable to defend the very things you say, then don't say them.

 

 

LMAO. You're the one asking circular questions to what's pretty clearly written. You don't want to see the point, you want to move it.

[Balta1701]

LMAO. You're the one asking circular questions to what's pretty clearly written. You don't want to see the point, you want to move it.

His statement was quite clear. He made a statement saying that there is more accountability in the private sector than the public sector, and as such you see less sweetheart deals. I found that surprising because I feel I've seen a whole lot of corrupt backroom deals come from the private sector regardless of this so-called accountability, so I questioned on it, and you'll note I have gotten zero specifics or examples or details as a response. I'm supposed to accept the platitude that the private sector works better at imposing accountability without evidence. When I ask for that evidence, it pisses people off, rather than eliciting an educated response. If you're not willing to back up your own statements, then you're going to have a rough time in here because that's how you effectively debate an issue.

[kapkomet]

His statement was quite clear. He made a statement saying that there is more accountability in the private sector than the public sector, and as such you see less sweetheart deals. I found that surprising because I feel I've seen a whole lot of corrupt backroom deals come from the private sector regardless of this so-called accountability, so I questioned on it, and you'll note I have gotten zero specifics or examples or details as a response. I'm supposed to accept the platitude that the private public sector works better at imposing accountability without evidence. When I ask for that evidence, it pisses people off, rather than eliciting an educated response. If you're not willing to back up your own statements, then you're going to have a rough time in here because that's how you effectively debate an issue.

 

Change that word, and that's what we get from you. You know, our transparent government.

 

Private sector demands accountability because there's a shareholder who will kick your ass out if you don't give it to them. Government gets re-elected for being corrupt. Why's that so hard to understand?

 

Obama is running the biggest ponzi scheme in American history right now and the platitudes are thrown at his feet by the likes of you every day. He can make money appear out of no where and enjoy the fruits of it with no ramifications, except to say by people like you that he's helping, saving the world and creating jobs.

[Balta1701]

Change that word, and that's what we get from you. You know, our transparent government.

 

Private sector demands accountability because there's a shareholder who will kick your ass out if you don't give it to them. Government gets re-elected for being corrupt. Why's that so hard to understand?

 

Obama is running the biggest ponzi scheme in American history right now and the platitudes are thrown at his feet by the likes of you every day. He can make money appear out of no where and enjoy the fruits of it with no ramifications, except to say by people like you that he's helping, saving the world and creating jobs.

What you don't realize is what you're doing is exactly what I'm criticizing you guys for. Every single thing in your statement there is not backed up. I ask you to do something other than just say "there's a shareholder who will kick your ass out if you don't give it to them", to prove your case. For example, I could counter with many, many examples from just the last year of shareholders being burnt so that guys could walk away with big bonuses, where if the government hadn't stepped in the shareholders would be left with nothing. Now, you may well be able to prove your case. Cite some data on something. Give me anything, anything at all with a bit of heft to it. You're not even at the citing an anecdote level here; I'm challenging your assumption rather than accepting it blindly, and instead of being willing to back up your statements, your response is frustration and anger.

[southsider2k5]

His statement was quite clear. He made a statement saying that there is more accountability in the private sector than the public sector, and as such you see less sweetheart deals. I found that surprising because I feel I've seen a whole lot of corrupt backroom deals come from the private sector regardless of this so-called accountability, so I questioned on it, and you'll note I have gotten zero specifics or examples or details as a response. I'm supposed to accept the platitude that the private sector works better at imposing accountability without evidence. When I ask for that evidence, it pisses people off, rather than eliciting an educated response. If you're not willing to back up your own statements, then you're going to have a rough time in here because that's how you effectively debate an issue.

 

Jesus H Christ . Get off of your high horse for about two seconds and think about this logically. The biggest reason that the government is more involved in this than anyone, or anything, is completely obvious. Who is out there to give a corporation a sweetheart deal, and who is out there to give on to the government? The only organizations out there looking to give stuff to corporations are government entities. Who is looking to get stuff out of the government in exchange for those same sweetheart deals? EVERYONE. Hell one of your biggest b****es all of the time is the lobbying groups in America. Stop for a nano-second and tell me exactly why they are flowing billions of dollars into individual members of our governments pockets? To gain influence. You see it all of the time. Look no further than the precious health care bill. How many sweetheart deals were handed out in that to bribe governmental officials into voting for that bill? How many billions of dollars were in there? But the government doesn't have a problem with this right? THE WHOLE DAMNED SYSTEM IS BASED ON SWEETHEART DEALS. If you don't, you don't get what you want. Now explain to me how the corporate side is worse than primarily existing on a system of bribes? Heck even the bribing of corporations is done by officials so that these same people can continue to get re-elected by going in front of people and bragging about how they bribed companies to come to their areas. They are complicit on both ends of it.

 

And as for the pissing me off part of that, the whole point is that the same stupid argument gets trite after a while. Questioning people's statements until you can push the conversation towards a liberal blog that says something you agree with isn't debate. I can read any of the left wing stuff if I wanted to "debate" like that. I'd actually like to see some indepentant thought and logic, hence the frustration and anger.

[Texsox]

As opposed to governments who give sweetheart deals in exchange for cash? I think there is actually more accountability in the corporate sectors, because at least they have to answer to shareholders. Judging by re-election rates, the government doesn't seem to have that problem.

 

Government giving sweetheart deals was what I was refering to.

 

Since we started talking about private versus public in awarding sweetheart deals, of course it is more common in private. There are no laws to circumvent in private. If company A wants to spend more to order from Company B because the owner is friends with the sales rep, no problem. And when was a publically traded company ever in trouble for their buyers paying more to buy something? The government has to post notices of bids going out, they have to open the buds publically, the winners and losers will see each others bids. The difference is it really is no big deal for the non government buyer. The non government buyer also usually has more flexibility to choose a higher price vendor based on other criteria, qulaity and service for example.

 

One area we have not mentioned is the treatment of employees. Governments for the most part do not violate labor laws. How will it be handled when a company is in violation? Or worse, company that fails, they bid too aggresively and cannot succeed? Again, I think those are growing pains that we have to work through, not reasons to stop privatization.

[Texsox]

Who is out there to give a corporation a sweetheart deal,

 

Other corporations. Happens all the time. But why is that even important to this conversation?

[Balta1701]

Other corporations. Happens all the time. But why is that even important to this conversation?

Because 2k5 is asserting it never happens.

[kapkomet]

Because 2k5 is asserting it never happens.

 

 

Where did you learn how to read? He didn't say it doesn't happen, he said that it happens in government in excess a lot and they get re-elected for it, and when it happens in corporations in excess, people get fired. Of course, in your utopia world of "government is great, corporations are evil", you're going to take examples of corporate corruption and sceam the sky is falling and we need to end the marketplace as it exists.

Edited January 13, 2010 by kapkomet

[StrangeSox]

Private sector demands accountability because there's a shareholder who will kick your ass out if you don't give it to them. Government gets re-elected for being corrupt. Why's that so hard to understand?

 

It is essentially the same mechanism in both. Voting by shareholders, which means you have zero power unless you are very, very wealthy, or financing (buying stock/ donating to campaigns) which again means you have zero power unless you are very, very wealthy.

 

Why's it so hard to understand that there is plenty of corruption in the business world and particularly at the executive level? They get kept on boards or signed to multi-million dollar contracts even if they completely fail.

[StrangeSox]

Where did you learn how to read? He didn't say it doesn't happen, he said that it happens in government in excess a lot and they get re-elected for it, and when it happens in corporations in excess, people get fired. Of course, in your utopia world of "government is great, corporations are evil", you're going to take examples of corporate corruption and sceam the sky is falling and we need to end the marketplace as it exists.

 

Switch around government and corporations and you've got yourself the core of modern conservative ideology. "Government ruins everything! Corporations will save us all! We need to end government as it exists!"

 

Both sides are going to screw you over. At least with government, you get a vote.

[kapkomet]

Switch around government and corporations and you've got yourself the core of modern conservative ideology. "Government ruins everything! Corporations will save us all! We need to end government as it exists!"

 

Both sides are going to screw you over. At least with government, you get a vote.

 

 

Who do you work for? You think your vote is better then a company you work for? Just using that as an example. Go to work for the government, private sector be damned. Rice fields for everyone! (yes, Kaperbole ™ )

 

You people honestly think that government is less corrupt and is more responsible then the private sector? NO ONE has said that corruption doesn't exist on both sides of the fence. But, it kills me to see that you all think there's some pious intent of government.

[lostfan]

Government isn't inherently corrupt and believe it or not ethics compliance etc. is really taken seriously... but it's a massive, sprawling bureaucracy and there's a lot of times where the right hand doesn't have a clue what the left is doing but the public expects the pinky finger to be able to touch an eyelash at the drop of a hat. It just can't. But a large corporation probably functions the same way actually.

[kapkomet]

Government isn't inherently corrupt and believe it or not ethics compliance etc. is really taken seriously... but it's a massive, sprawling bureaucracy and there's a lot of times where the right hand doesn't have a clue what the left is doing but the public expects the pinky finger to be able to touch an eyelash at the drop of a hat. It just can't. But a large corporation probably functions the same way actually.

 

 

Sure they do - they're both bureaucratic as hell. But whenever you remove a motive for shareholder return and counter it with no accountability what so ever (OMG, the VOTERS, 90% of which have no clue and just want the government to give them what they want... OBAMAMAMA's GOT THAT STASH!!! LOLERZZZ!!!) other then deficit spending and a printing press in the basement of the White House and Capitol Hill, the motive to get things in line (shrink, whatever) just disappeared right out the window, and corruption becomes much more "behind the scenes" because people don't have a clue how it works.

 

In a corporation, you become worthless if corruption is found. Not the government. That's been the point.

[southsider2k5]

Sure they do - they're both bureaucratic as hell. But whenever you remove a motive for shareholder return and counter it with no accountability what so ever (OMG, the VOTERS, 90% of which have no clue and just want the government to give them what they want... OBAMAMAMA's GOT THAT STASH!!! LOLERZZZ!!!) other then deficit spending and a printing press in the basement of the White House and Capitol Hill, the motive to get things in line (shrink, whatever) just disappeared right out the window, and corruption becomes much more "behind the scenes" because people don't have a clue how it works.

 

In a corporation, you become worthless if corruption is found. Not the government. That's been the point.

 

Bingo.

[Texsox]

Where did you learn how to read? He didn't say it doesn't happen, he said that it happens in government in excess a lot and they get re-elected for it, and when it happens in corporations in excess, people get fired. Of course, in your utopia world of "government is great, corporations are evil", you're going to take examples of corporate corruption and sceam the sky is falling and we need to end the marketplace as it exists.

 

Having spent a fair amount of time at purchasing department desks, what I would call sweetheart deals, stuff the governmnent is not allowed to do, happens all the time and the buyer is rarely fired unless he accepts cash. Non government buyers can, and often do, take someone other than the low bidder. It may be the company they have dealt with on other matters. Lots of reasons, valid, and not so valid.

 

Consolidation of vendor bases have companies knowingly paying more for items to reduce the number of vendors they deal with. Government, for the most part is not allowed to do that. Non government companies do not have to send things out for public bids, they hand it to a buyer and accept his judgement. In non government companies, buyers can and will change specs "on the fly" to complete a purchase, government buyers usually cannot.

 

The reason there are more illegal sweetheart deals in government is non government buyers do not have the same restrictions, therefor, it is normal business and no one pays attention. What is an illegal sweetheart deal for government isn't the same for non government buyers. So any comparison is probably unfair.

 

But you two keep hollerin'

[southsider2k5]

How many businesses are given cash in exchange for a vote?