4 ms·

No, I don't expect the military to turn a profit because the military is not an entity that is expected to be self-sufficient. I included that wording specific

No, I don't expect the military to turn a profit because the military is not an entity that is expected to be self-sufficient. I included that wording specifically because it is key for the agency/entity being examined. I don't expect the schools, military, police, fire, etc. to be profitable. As for the subsidies, I do not find it "perfectly acceptable" at all. That just means the cost is spread to non-users and society as a whole pays more for the service than we would otherwise. Take public transportation. The services near me are cheaper than the private companies because they are subsidized by the government so they can charge less. All this means is that people who drive their own vehicles and don't use public transportation end up paying for their non-use of the public transportation system. Also, the employees of the public transportation system have wages, benefits, and retirement packages that are far superior to the private sector ones. Guess who pays for all that? They are getting special treatment far above what the free market allows. The electoral incentives are not to be well run - they are to employ as many people as possible in that government agency and look good. It is usually to their benefit to overstaff than be lean and efficient. How good does it look when they are letting people go? The CFO of my previous company got let go during a merger we went through. He went to work for a government agency and he told me that he quite literally does the work of 5 people because he's used to having a full plate and can do what they consider a full day's work at that agency in about 2 hours.

crdoconnor 9y ago
"No, I don't expect the military to turn a profit because the military is not an entity that is expected to be self-sufficient." Your expectations about what is and what is not supposed to be self sufficient are not defined. What is wrong with "does it serve a public purpose?" "As for the subsidies, I do not find it "perfectly acceptable" at all. That just means the cost is spread to non-users and society as a whole pays more for the service than we would otherwise." It's the best way to fund things which do benefit society as a whole - like a well functioning banking system. Furthermore, an anti-competitive private market (of which banking qualifies like I said before) also levies a cost spread to both non-users and society. Having the FIRE sector consume 1/3 of GDP is not an efficient allocation of resources and this deadweight loss impacts everybody. "Take public transportation. The services near me are cheaper than the private companies because they are subsidized by the government so they can charge less. All this means is that people who drive their own vehicles and don't use public transportation end up paying for their non-use of the public transportation system." Which is surely entirely fair because they impose greater externalities on the rest of us - both with traffic and pollution? "Also, the employees of the public transportation system have wages, benefits, and retirement packages that are far superior to the private sector ones. Guess who pays for all that? They are getting special treatment far above what the free market allows." There's no such thing as a free market. It's a myth. A fairy tale. There's markets and market pressures.

crdoconnor 9y ago

"No, I don't expect the military to turn a profit because the military is not an entity that is expected to be self-sufficient." Your expectations about what is and what is not supposed to be self sufficient are not defined. What is wrong with "does it serve a public purpose?" "As for the subsidies, I do not find it "perfectly acceptable" at all. That just means the cost is spread to non-users and society as a whole pays more for the service than we would otherwise." It's the best way to fund things which do benefit society as a whole - like a well functioning banking system. Furthermore, an anti-competitive private market (of which banking qualifies like I said before) also levies a cost spread to both non-users and society. Having the FIRE sector consume 1/3 of GDP is not an efficient allocation of resources and this deadweight loss impacts everybody. "Take public transportation. The services near me are cheaper than the private companies because they are subsidized by the government so they can charge less. All this means is that people who drive their own vehicles and don't use public transportation end up paying for their non-use of the public transportation system." Which is surely entirely fair because they impose greater externalities on the rest of us - both with traffic and pollution? "Also, the employees of the public transportation system have wages, benefits, and retirement packages that are far superior to the private sector ones. Guess who pays for all that? They are getting special treatment far above what the free market allows." There's no such thing as a free market. It's a myth. A fairy tale. There's markets and market pressures.