6 ms·

No silly. They just complain to the feds when it happens, and get a nice big fat day of “getting away Scott free” while tax payers foot the majority of the clea

by wredue 3y ago

No silly. They just complain to the feds when it happens, and get a nice big fat day of “getting away Scott free” while tax payers foot the majority of the cleanup cost. The saying is “privatize profits, socialize losses” for a reason.

gruez 3y ago
>while tax payers foot the majority of the cleanup cost. source?
kortilla 3y ago
> The saying is “privatize profits, socialize losses” for a reason. It’s a saying because it’s a catchy socialist rallying cry, not because it has any relevance to the event in question.
- hughesjj 3y ago
  It's also a saying because it's trueeee (See: Superfund sites, this event in question, climate change, highways and car based infrastructure, etc...)
  - gruez 3y ago
    >highways and car based infrastructure, etc...) If you follow this line of logic, it quickly gets absurd. The whole point of government is to do things that benefit society as a whole, but aren't feasible to do on a for profit basis (eg. roads, police, schools, etc.). Private companies and individuals are inevitably going to reap benefits as a result. If that constitutes "privatize profits, socialize losses", then you're just describing a properly functioning government. Going back to the initial point, what are governments supposed to do? Not build highways? Not have the police because that would "privatize profits" because private business no longer have to fund their own security?
    - doctor_eval 3y ago
      > The whole point of government is to do things that benefit society as a whole, but aren't feasible to do on a for profit basis Err.. that’s a very unique definition, and certainly not one that’s universally accepted. > If that constitutes "privatize profits, socialize losses", then you're just describing a properly functioning government. One of the many roles of legitimate government is to protect the safety of citizens, aka voters. But corporations are incentivised to reduce costs. When these principles come into conflict, unfortunately the corporates tend to win (at least in the short term), at the expense of everyone else. A “properly functioning” government would balance these conflicts such that the cost of doing business was not socialised, for example by preventing companies from “cheating” by externalising costs that their competitors do not.
      - gruez 3y ago
        >Err.. that’s a very unique definition, and certainly not one that’s universally accepted. Feel free to present your own theory. >One of the many roles of legitimate government is to protect the safety of citizens, aka voters. Okay but how do schools, libraries, and roads fit into this?
        doctor_eval 3y ago
        > Feel free to present your own theory. I'm not sure my "theory" of government would fit into a HN post but it would include things like legitimacy, monopoly of force, right to taxation, distribution of income, democracy, representation... things like that. Ideally, modern government going back to the Magna Carta is there to protect those without power from those with it. > Okay but how do schools, libraries, and roads fit into this? Well a "properly functioning" and democratic government makes decisions about the allocation of resources based on the needs of society. For example, in my country, healthcare is mostly socialised, because we believe that this provides the best outcomes. Anyway - the argument I'm making is that the phrase "socialise losses, privatise profits" accurately describes what actually happens in the world. Just because it's not universally true doesn't mean that it's not a useful prism through which to view the world. In the end, it's basically just a large scale version of "follow the money".
- otikik 3y ago
  Socialists say it, capitalists do it.
StressedDev 3y ago
I have never seen the Federal government pick up the tab for a railroad accident it did not cause or was not involved in. Could you please go into more detail?

by wredue 3y ago

gruez 3y ago

>while tax payers foot the majority of the cleanup cost. source?

kortilla 3y ago

> The saying is “privatize profits, socialize losses” for a reason. It’s a saying because it’s a catchy socialist rallying cry, not because it has any relevance to the event in question.

hughesjj 3y ago
It's also a saying because it's trueeee (See: Superfund sites, this event in question, climate change, highways and car based infrastructure, etc...)
- gruez 3y ago
  >highways and car based infrastructure, etc...) If you follow this line of logic, it quickly gets absurd. The whole point of government is to do things that benefit society as a whole, but aren't feasible to do on a for profit basis (eg. roads, police, schools, etc.). Private companies and individuals are inevitably going to reap benefits as a result. If that constitutes "privatize profits, socialize losses", then you're just describing a properly functioning government. Going back to the initial point, what are governments supposed to do? Not build highways? Not have the police because that would "privatize profits" because private business no longer have to fund their own security?
  - doctor_eval 3y ago
    > The whole point of government is to do things that benefit society as a whole, but aren't feasible to do on a for profit basis Err.. that’s a very unique definition, and certainly not one that’s universally accepted. > If that constitutes "privatize profits, socialize losses", then you're just describing a properly functioning government. One of the many roles of legitimate government is to protect the safety of citizens, aka voters. But corporations are incentivised to reduce costs. When these principles come into conflict, unfortunately the corporates tend to win (at least in the short term), at the expense of everyone else. A “properly functioning” government would balance these conflicts such that the cost of doing business was not socialised, for example by preventing companies from “cheating” by externalising costs that their competitors do not.
    - gruez 3y ago
      >Err.. that’s a very unique definition, and certainly not one that’s universally accepted. Feel free to present your own theory. >One of the many roles of legitimate government is to protect the safety of citizens, aka voters. Okay but how do schools, libraries, and roads fit into this?
      - doctor_eval 3y ago
        > Feel free to present your own theory. I'm not sure my "theory" of government would fit into a HN post but it would include things like legitimacy, monopoly of force, right to taxation, distribution of income, democracy, representation... things like that. Ideally, modern government going back to the Magna Carta is there to protect those without power from those with it. > Okay but how do schools, libraries, and roads fit into this? Well a "properly functioning" and democratic government makes decisions about the allocation of resources based on the needs of society. For example, in my country, healthcare is mostly socialised, because we believe that this provides the best outcomes. Anyway - the argument I'm making is that the phrase "socialise losses, privatise profits" accurately describes what actually happens in the world. Just because it's not universally true doesn't mean that it's not a useful prism through which to view the world. In the end, it's basically just a large scale version of "follow the money".
otikik 3y ago
Socialists say it, capitalists do it.

StressedDev 3y ago

I have never seen the Federal government pick up the tab for a railroad accident it did not cause or was not involved in. Could you please go into more detail?