B J Foster wrote:
> jg wrote:
>> B J Foster wrote:
>>> jg wrote:
>>>> B J Foster wrote:
>>>>> Addinall wrote:
>>>>>> On Jun 24, 8:22 pm, fasgnadh <fasgn...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>> Wasted Energy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/5z9mmg
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - The Age 24/6/2008
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Australia should tackle the energy challenge with
>>>>>>> vision and bold leader****p."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. Nationalise mineral and energy resources.
>>>>>
>>>>> No way. If you want to **** something up, let the government run it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> .....
>>>>
>>>> What, like practically all the water, power, waste, public
>>>> trans****t, mail, telephone, rail, hospitals, public schools,
>>>> universities, roads, legal/penal system... up til about 10 years
>>>> ago? Oh, and running the country - should we privatise that too?
>>>> How did we ever get this far with gov't fking up all these things?
>>>>
>>>
>>> What about them?
>>>
>>
>> Witty comeback. Those have all traditionally been run by government,
>> private enterprise only comes along later when it's a going concern
>> and they can see a potential profit. You are saying all these basic
>> services have always been fkd up because government has run them.
>
> Of course private enterprise is only interested in a profit. The
> profit-motive is what underpins our society. If the government ran these
> enterprises (at a loss) then tax FROM PRIVATE ENTERPRISE PROFIT would
> have to subsidise it - so you end up paying anyway. If private
> enterprise runs these enterprises then they will be operated on
> commercial, not political criteria.
>
>>
Where is the profit in roads, defense, law enforcement? Where was
private enterprise when we needed an overland rail or telegraph line? If
profitability was the only criteria you would probably still have a
dunny cart to your house - the contractor could extract more money from
you that way. Why should government dish out for these things when they
do nothing but cut into its "profits"? Perhaps private can run a
particular enterprise more efficiently, but "profit" very often depends
on someone else having set up the market or infrastructure, or not
providing the service at all unless conditions are right.
>>
>>> Where did you get the idea that the government "runs" the country?
>>> The government earns not one single cent - it is pure overhead.
>>
>>
>> If government does not govern, who does - rio tinto?
>> Is that your definition of running the country - to earn money?
>>
>>
>
> Every cent the government spends must come from somewhere - it comes
> from private enterprise from tax revenue
Government does a lot that no single private entity will or can do and
we are all pretty interested in who is in the government. Private
enterprise does one chosen job when it appears profitable, with varying
degrees of success - going broke or making huge profits costs the
community too. The system generally works better with private doing
select jobs they are good at if they are honest, but without a
government there is no enterprise at all and quite possibly far fewer
basic services.
|
