4 ms·

Oh, it gets better: "Temin advocates doing away with the belief that private agencies can act in the interest of all citizens in the way that public entities ca

Oh, it gets better: "Temin advocates doing away with the belief that private agencies can act in the interest of all citizens in the way that public entities can, and should"

Applejinx 10y ago
Makes sense to me. Private agencies must act in the interest of themselves in a fiduciary sense, even outside of market forces. Once you involve market forces, and worse, the issuing of stock leading to ownership by a class that demands immediate returns of money for their investment, private agencies are seemingly required to screw over citizens, because that's how you extract money from them in large quantities. Contrasted to that, the bureaucracy of public entities is a much more insignificant problem. Public internet might be sort of 'third world', but right now they are kicking our butts in that, and Comcast might be working hard (meh…) but they are not working for you, they are working to extract capital out of you in the most efficient manner possible. Once you include the caveat of 'all citizens' (even in Podunkville) it's not even an argument anymore. There's an assumption that it's right and proper to hose Podunkville because they're not the big city and shouldn't have nice things if their productivity doesn't warrant it, and this assumption is fair to challenge or even contradict outright. I'm rooting for Podunkville (the big city doesn't need my ideological help) so I'm in favor of public entities. I guess we'll be seeing some experimentation, in that we're likely to see a heavy swing to privatization right now, and most likely a counter-swing in four to eight years. Should be worth keeping track of how it all works. That 'all citizens', though, that's a conditional which is at the heart of the discussion.
- greggyb 10y ago
  Private != for-profit. Perhaps you realize this, but it does not seem clear in your post.
  - scarface74 10y ago
    The distinction between private for profit and not for profit is a distinction without a difference. It just means that outside shareholders aren't making money, but you'll find that stakeholders in a lot of not for profit companies are just as interested in making money as for profits. The stakeholder are often just the employees.

Oh, it gets better: "Temin advocates doing away with the belief that private agencies can act in the interest of all citizens in the way that public entities can, and should"

Applejinx 10y ago

Makes sense to me. Private agencies must act in the interest of themselves in a fiduciary sense, even outside of market forces. Once you involve market forces, and worse, the issuing of stock leading to ownership by a class that demands immediate returns of money for their investment, private agencies are seemingly required to screw over citizens, because that's how you extract money from them in large quantities. Contrasted to that, the bureaucracy of public entities is a much more insignificant problem. Public internet might be sort of 'third world', but right now they are kicking our butts in that, and Comcast might be working hard (meh…) but they are not working for you, they are working to extract capital out of you in the most efficient manner possible. Once you include the caveat of 'all citizens' (even in Podunkville) it's not even an argument anymore. There's an assumption that it's right and proper to hose Podunkville because they're not the big city and shouldn't have nice things if their productivity doesn't warrant it, and this assumption is fair to challenge or even contradict outright. I'm rooting for Podunkville (the big city doesn't need my ideological help) so I'm in favor of public entities. I guess we'll be seeing some experimentation, in that we're likely to see a heavy swing to privatization right now, and most likely a counter-swing in four to eight years. Should be worth keeping track of how it all works. That 'all citizens', though, that's a conditional which is at the heart of the discussion.

greggyb 10y ago
Private != for-profit. Perhaps you realize this, but it does not seem clear in your post.
- scarface74 10y ago
  The distinction between private for profit and not for profit is a distinction without a difference. It just means that outside shareholders aren't making money, but you'll find that stakeholders in a lot of not for profit companies are just as interested in making money as for profits. The stakeholder are often just the employees.