5 ms·

That's because the public sector doesn't build hardly anything anymore. They pay the private sector to build it. There are tons of examples of the public sect

by moosey 8y ago

That's because the public sector doesn't build hardly anything anymore. They pay the private sector to build it. There are tons of examples of the public sector doing major works throughout the history of the United States. Only now, during a time of incredible distrust in our capability to do public works, does it become expensive/impossible.

agumonkey 8y ago
public/private ventures seems the worst of both world. In France a few big projects of this nature got news coverage, it was a super sad view. Hospital unfit for operations. Millions sunk .. no warranties, nothing.
- paleotrope 8y ago
  More like public/semi-private. Usually private money but the primary contractors have a very close relationship with the public side. Government contracts have been incestuous for a long time.
stcredzero 8y ago
That's because the public sector doesn't build hardly anything anymore. They pay the private sector to build it. With little in the way of warranties, or so public perception goes. So then the public sector has to pay even more money to get stuff fixed, and contractors have little to no incentive to increase quality. Germany has warranties on roads. Their roads are supposed to be good. Italy isn't as good about warranties on public projects. Their road projects are supposed to be quagmires of corruption. The US? In the past, the practice had been for 1 year warranties on road projects, but following the example of countries like Germany, Spain, Denmark, Sweden, and Great Britain, federal officials have been trying to extend that out to 5 years for all federally funded road projects. New Mexico had a 20 year warranty on one project. (EDIT: I did some Googling, and found that some progress had been made, actually. My opinion on this was formed in the 90's, but there's new information now.)
CydeWeys 8y ago
The private construction sector is simply a lot less honest and more incestuously intertwined with government than it used to be. To give one example, the Hoover Dam was completed under budget and two years early, and cost well under one billion in today's dollars. There were actually large penalties written into the contract for various stages of the construction taking too long, e.g. $3k per day the diversion tunnels were late, and there was no additional money to be made by fucking up and running over-budget. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Dam Contrast with construction projects today, where the goal seems, essentially, to go over budget and over time, because you get paid more that way. The government doesn't hold the companies accountable, and because of this, they purposely run up costs and billable days. Amazing feats of construction are possible these days with modern technology, way more than what was accomplished with the Hoover Dam, but not when incentives aren't aligned. There are plenty of other countries where the relationship between private construction companies and the government remains honest, and those citizens thus get a lot more bang for their tax dollar in infrastructure projects.
- njarboe 8y ago
  Cost plus contracts are a huge problem for efficient public funding of projects. Also see NASA'a SLS rocket versus SpaceX's falcon heavy. SpaceX's next generation rocket is going to be so far ahead of the SLS in capabilities and cost it is ridiculous to continue the NASA program. I would not be surprised if the SLS program will even survive the first launch of the BFR. Hopefully they will be able to cancel it at that point and use the funds for funding sending people to mars using SpaceX tech.
  - CydeWeys 8y ago
    SLS is a great example because, incredibly, the contractors get paid no matter what. They don't have to achieve goals, meet timelines, or come in on budget. They simply do things and get paid for them. Contrast with SpaceX, which has to have successful launches in order to survive. They are incentivized to succeed, and so they do. The SLS program has little incentive to succeed, so instead it turns into a game of extracting as much money as possible (which is inimical to succeeding quickly!!!).

by moosey 8y ago

agumonkey 8y ago

public/private ventures seems the worst of both world. In France a few big projects of this nature got news coverage, it was a super sad view. Hospital unfit for operations. Millions sunk .. no warranties, nothing.

paleotrope 8y ago
More like public/semi-private. Usually private money but the primary contractors have a very close relationship with the public side. Government contracts have been incestuous for a long time.

stcredzero 8y ago

That's because the public sector doesn't build hardly anything anymore. They pay the private sector to build it. With little in the way of warranties, or so public perception goes. So then the public sector has to pay even more money to get stuff fixed, and contractors have little to no incentive to increase quality. Germany has warranties on roads. Their roads are supposed to be good. Italy isn't as good about warranties on public projects. Their road projects are supposed to be quagmires of corruption. The US? In the past, the practice had been for 1 year warranties on road projects, but following the example of countries like Germany, Spain, Denmark, Sweden, and Great Britain, federal officials have been trying to extend that out to 5 years for all federally funded road projects. New Mexico had a 20 year warranty on one project. (EDIT: I did some Googling, and found that some progress had been made, actually. My opinion on this was formed in the 90's, but there's new information now.)

CydeWeys 8y ago

The private construction sector is simply a lot less honest and more incestuously intertwined with government than it used to be. To give one example, the Hoover Dam was completed under budget and two years early, and cost well under one billion in today's dollars. There were actually large penalties written into the contract for various stages of the construction taking too long, e.g. $3k per day the diversion tunnels were late, and there was no additional money to be made by fucking up and running over-budget. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Dam Contrast with construction projects today, where the goal seems, essentially, to go over budget and over time, because you get paid more that way. The government doesn't hold the companies accountable, and because of this, they purposely run up costs and billable days. Amazing feats of construction are possible these days with modern technology, way more than what was accomplished with the Hoover Dam, but not when incentives aren't aligned. There are plenty of other countries where the relationship between private construction companies and the government remains honest, and those citizens thus get a lot more bang for their tax dollar in infrastructure projects.

njarboe 8y ago
Cost plus contracts are a huge problem for efficient public funding of projects. Also see NASA'a SLS rocket versus SpaceX's falcon heavy. SpaceX's next generation rocket is going to be so far ahead of the SLS in capabilities and cost it is ridiculous to continue the NASA program. I would not be surprised if the SLS program will even survive the first launch of the BFR. Hopefully they will be able to cancel it at that point and use the funds for funding sending people to mars using SpaceX tech.
- CydeWeys 8y ago
  SLS is a great example because, incredibly, the contractors get paid no matter what. They don't have to achieve goals, meet timelines, or come in on budget. They simply do things and get paid for them. Contrast with SpaceX, which has to have successful launches in order to survive. They are incentivized to succeed, and so they do. The SLS program has little incentive to succeed, so instead it turns into a game of extracting as much money as possible (which is inimical to succeeding quickly!!!).