4 ms·

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".
      - gruez 3y ago
        >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 that says nothing of why schools and roads are provided by the government but food is not. The theory I gave straightforwardly explains why. >Anyway - the argument I'm making is that the phrase "socialise losses, privatise profits" accurately describes what actually happens in the world. I'm not arguing it doesn't. In fact I'm arguing the opposite, which is that it's so good at "accurately describes what actually happens in the world" that it doesn't just cover "bad" things, it also covers "good" things. Outside of transfer programs, most things that the government does are "socialise losses, privatise profits". >In the end, it's basically just a large scale version of "follow the money". What's the principle here? I'm sure teachers unions and textbook companies benefit directly from public schools. Companies that hire knowledge workers also probably indirectly benefit. All of the groups probably engage in some sort of political lobbying and/or campaign contributions. Given all that, what should we conclude if we "follow the money"?

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".
    - gruez 3y ago
      >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 that says nothing of why schools and roads are provided by the government but food is not. The theory I gave straightforwardly explains why. >Anyway - the argument I'm making is that the phrase "socialise losses, privatise profits" accurately describes what actually happens in the world. I'm not arguing it doesn't. In fact I'm arguing the opposite, which is that it's so good at "accurately describes what actually happens in the world" that it doesn't just cover "bad" things, it also covers "good" things. Outside of transfer programs, most things that the government does are "socialise losses, privatise profits". >In the end, it's basically just a large scale version of "follow the money". What's the principle here? I'm sure teachers unions and textbook companies benefit directly from public schools. Companies that hire knowledge workers also probably indirectly benefit. All of the groups probably engage in some sort of political lobbying and/or campaign contributions. Given all that, what should we conclude if we "follow the money"?