4 ms·

I don't see how this is bizarre. He's trying to jettison anything that loses money. Selling a business for nothing is a net profit to you if the business is l

I don't see how this is bizarre. He's trying to jettison anything that loses money. Selling a business for nothing is a net profit to you if the business is losing money. As far as Koch Industries they specifically said (in the 2nd link you posted) that they have no interest in the power plants.

jlv 16y ago
I'd argue that what's bizarre about it is the uncompetitive nature of the bidding. Sure, jettison anything that's losing money right now (as short-sighted as it seems) but at least get top dollar for it. As is, it seems a little shady - no?
- TomOfTTB 16y ago
  Not if you're trying to act quickly. I'm not saying it's how I would react but he's clearly trying to take immediate action and a long, drawn out process isn't conducive to that. Any government bidding program is going to take several years to complete. It's going to involve a committee to evaluate the bids. That committee will have to be formed meaning there will be politics involved in deciding who is on the committee. Once that's all done you'll have to put out the request for bids and wait for those bids to come in. Then comes the evaluation by the committee and so on. Again I wouldn't disagree if you said he's acting rashly but it's consistent with his public stance to push these things quickly.
  - michaelcampbell 16y ago
    > a long, drawn out process It doesn't have to be that, either. A fixed, short to medium time frame will do for bids; it doesn't have to be all or nothing. And honestly, perhaps he's 100% on the up and up (like every other politician), and Koch Industries is honest to a fault (like so many other corporations) and really DOESN'T want utilities at potentially criminally low prices; this non-bid clause give a huge appearance of impropriety. With nothing else anywhere to show that there isn't any, would it not be prudent to either explain his actions or change them accordingly?
  - tzs 16y ago
    > Any government bidding program is going to take several years to complete. I doubt this. Governments routinely sell assets, such as property seized in criminal cases, tax foreclosures, and surplus equipment at auction and it doesn't take years. There doesn't seem to be anything about the proposed sales in Wisconsin that would require a long procedure.
  - easp 16y ago
    Well, since they got caught trying to slip this through, I'm going to bet that it makes this and any other asset sale they are contemplating even more drawn out.
entangld 16y ago
Just because a business is losing money, doesn't mean it has zero value. Paul Collier, author of the "Bottom Billion", said poor countries get screwed for their resources because they don't put them up to bid. He even said the British government valued certain frequencies at 2 billion, but they later sold for 20 billion during bidding, so it's better for all governments to auction assets instead of pricing them or giving them away.
- TomOfTTB 16y ago
  True. And they should certainly try to get some money for their assets (and they haven't said they won't). But the point still remains. If you're actively losing money on an investment and selling it for zero is your only option it's still better to sell it for zero than to hold on to it.
  - jbooth 16y ago
    You might want to look at the Russian privatization of the early 1990s for an example of exactly how not to do this. Unfortunately, Walker seems to think that experience is an instruction manual.
blueben 16y ago
It's a little disingenuous to call public utilities a money losing proposition. They're infrastructure. Communities invest in infrastructure to see dividends in prosperity, not cash.
- TomOfTTB 16y ago
  But privatizing it isn't going to take the infrastructure away from the public. So the question is one of cash flow not the overall value of the asset. No one's saying it was a bad decision to build the infrastructure. The the state only has so much money and this is taking more of it every month.
  - blueben 16y ago
    Privatization doesn't take control of infrastructure away from the public. Also, up is down, black is white, and disagreement is agreement.
potatolicious 16y ago
For a moment let's assume that it is indeed in the government's interest to sell these properties. Why is there a no-bid clause? Should the government not be obligated to try and get the best price it can on a major property sale? The no-bid part just reeks of corruption - there's no solid reason to have it there. If someone bids ten dollars for a power plant and nobody else comes forward with a better bid, so be it, but at least the process needs to be competitive and transparent.
- glenra 16y ago
  If it's in the government's interest to sell these properties, the important thing politically might be to sell it as quickly as possible rather than wait to get the best possible deal. Trying to "get the best price it can" might be a false economy, letting the best be the enemy of the good. In the best case it adds delay, in the worst case fighting over the terms might prevent the deal from going through. In other words, "Don't let the best be the enemy of the good."
  - michaelcampbell 16y ago
    How about the better? There's vast oceans between "the best possible price we can possibly get" and "whoever offers first".
michaelcampbell 16y ago
Yes, I saw that, and perhaps I'm a bit skeptical yet but I'm not prepared to take a huge corporation's PR soundbites at face value.

jlv 16y ago

I'd argue that what's bizarre about it is the uncompetitive nature of the bidding. Sure, jettison anything that's losing money right now (as short-sighted as it seems) but at least get top dollar for it. As is, it seems a little shady - no?

TomOfTTB 16y ago
Not if you're trying to act quickly. I'm not saying it's how I would react but he's clearly trying to take immediate action and a long, drawn out process isn't conducive to that. Any government bidding program is going to take several years to complete. It's going to involve a committee to evaluate the bids. That committee will have to be formed meaning there will be politics involved in deciding who is on the committee. Once that's all done you'll have to put out the request for bids and wait for those bids to come in. Then comes the evaluation by the committee and so on. Again I wouldn't disagree if you said he's acting rashly but it's consistent with his public stance to push these things quickly.
- michaelcampbell 16y ago
  > a long, drawn out process It doesn't have to be that, either. A fixed, short to medium time frame will do for bids; it doesn't have to be all or nothing. And honestly, perhaps he's 100% on the up and up (like every other politician), and Koch Industries is honest to a fault (like so many other corporations) and really DOESN'T want utilities at potentially criminally low prices; this non-bid clause give a huge appearance of impropriety. With nothing else anywhere to show that there isn't any, would it not be prudent to either explain his actions or change them accordingly?
- tzs 16y ago
  > Any government bidding program is going to take several years to complete. I doubt this. Governments routinely sell assets, such as property seized in criminal cases, tax foreclosures, and surplus equipment at auction and it doesn't take years. There doesn't seem to be anything about the proposed sales in Wisconsin that would require a long procedure.
- easp 16y ago
  Well, since they got caught trying to slip this through, I'm going to bet that it makes this and any other asset sale they are contemplating even more drawn out.

entangld 16y ago

Just because a business is losing money, doesn't mean it has zero value. Paul Collier, author of the "Bottom Billion", said poor countries get screwed for their resources because they don't put them up to bid. He even said the British government valued certain frequencies at 2 billion, but they later sold for 20 billion during bidding, so it's better for all governments to auction assets instead of pricing them or giving them away.

TomOfTTB 16y ago
True. And they should certainly try to get some money for their assets (and they haven't said they won't). But the point still remains. If you're actively losing money on an investment and selling it for zero is your only option it's still better to sell it for zero than to hold on to it.
- jbooth 16y ago
  You might want to look at the Russian privatization of the early 1990s for an example of exactly how not to do this. Unfortunately, Walker seems to think that experience is an instruction manual.

blueben 16y ago

It's a little disingenuous to call public utilities a money losing proposition. They're infrastructure. Communities invest in infrastructure to see dividends in prosperity, not cash.

TomOfTTB 16y ago
But privatizing it isn't going to take the infrastructure away from the public. So the question is one of cash flow not the overall value of the asset. No one's saying it was a bad decision to build the infrastructure. The the state only has so much money and this is taking more of it every month.
- blueben 16y ago
  Privatization doesn't take control of infrastructure away from the public. Also, up is down, black is white, and disagreement is agreement.

potatolicious 16y ago

For a moment let's assume that it is indeed in the government's interest to sell these properties. Why is there a no-bid clause? Should the government not be obligated to try and get the best price it can on a major property sale? The no-bid part just reeks of corruption - there's no solid reason to have it there. If someone bids ten dollars for a power plant and nobody else comes forward with a better bid, so be it, but at least the process needs to be competitive and transparent.

glenra 16y ago
If it's in the government's interest to sell these properties, the important thing politically might be to sell it as quickly as possible rather than wait to get the best possible deal. Trying to "get the best price it can" might be a false economy, letting the best be the enemy of the good. In the best case it adds delay, in the worst case fighting over the terms might prevent the deal from going through. In other words, "Don't let the best be the enemy of the good."
- michaelcampbell 16y ago
  How about the better? There's vast oceans between "the best possible price we can possibly get" and "whoever offers first".

michaelcampbell 16y ago

Yes, I saw that, and perhaps I'm a bit skeptical yet but I'm not prepared to take a huge corporation's PR soundbites at face value.