5 ms·

Why, would US govt run it any better?! If you think financial types can't run an engineering and manufacturing business, wait until you see the politicians try.

by yyyfb 3y ago

tenebrisalietum 3y ago
You trust the gov to run the military, which is literally essential to the nation's survival, so why not?
- anovikov 3y ago
  Maybe that's the problem actually. We have to wait till Elon Musk turns his eye on the military and starts running it no matter what the states think of it.
  - soupfordummies 3y ago
    Well there’s a nice horrifying thought on a Saturday morning :D
  - 303uru 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - the_only_law 3y ago
      [flagged]
- jvanderbot 3y ago
  Gp made a bait and switch, equating government ownership with Congress in the board room. The implication doesn't ring true
  - crystaln 3y ago
    The military is not a business. It doesn’t have a revenue model that tries to maintain solvency.
    - grecy 3y ago
      Given large companies get bailouts whenever they need them, I would argue the same is true of many companies in the US.
      - abduhl 3y ago
        Name the last large company to receive a bailout. This question is important to see where you draw the line on something being a “bailout.”
        grecy 3y ago
        https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list 991 times for a total of $635B
        abduhl 3y ago
        This list includes companies that received <$10,000 (and which was paid back entirely, for example the one below). It sounds like any amount of money from the government is a bailout by your metric. Or perhaps your definition is more narrow since the list only includes financial institutions and automakers, so maybe it's only banks or automakers that receive money from the government? To be less charitable, I'm pretty sure you're just reciting some stupid Twitter/Reddit talking point that you agree with and that you have no principled stance on this beyond "Arghhhhh I hate big corps! The system sucks! Corporations privatize profits and socialize losses!" https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/entities/927-east-end-baptist-tabernacle-federal-credit-union https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/entities/927-east-en...
        grecy 3y ago
        It's interesting how quick you are to jump into an ad hominem attack, rather than discuss the topic at hand. Please don't do that. It makes your argument look very weak, and it's not polite. We're here to have a discussion, not attack people.
- crystaln 3y ago
  I’m not sure it you’re aware of the inefficiencies and corruption of the military, or the fact that - it’s a cost center. It’s also something we are able to spend unlimited funds on because it is existential. And privatizing the military would be a terrible idea. We definitely can’t afford to operate other industries the way we operate the military, which consumes 15% of the annual budget.
  - the_snooze 3y ago
    Efficiency can be a problem in and of itself. Efficiency is a fine enough goal, though too often companies pursue it to the point that other important values like safety, resiliency, and long-term stability fall by the wayside. They'll also pursue efficiency by externalizing costs and risks to other parties. That's basically what you see in the rail shipping industry [1]. Companies will naturally pursue effiency. Nationalizing a company may be going too far, but we need something else (i.e., government) to pressure them to maintain other values too. [1] https://www.propublica.org/article/train-derailment-long-trains https://www.propublica.org/article/train-derailment-long-tra...
- yyyfb 3y ago
  Trust by default. The difference is, I don't trust anyone else to run the military.
- paxys 3y ago
  The US military isn't exactly the picture of efficiency. Let Boeing lose a trillion dollars every year and don't subject it to audits or any other oversight then yeah, I'm sure the government will run it great.
- peterfirefly 3y ago
  And the military is horribly inefficient. So why not privatize it? Because that would almost certainly lead to other, very bad, outcomes...
  - TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
    Military procurement in the US is already privatised in everything but name. The brass get a place at the top table in matters of national policy and critical event response, but procurement is essentially privatised, with an open door between senior military figures, politicians, senior contractors/consultants, and C-Suite. Boeing is one the poster children for that. Costs would definitely be saved if there were more defence and aerospace bidders and engineering cultures, and Boeing couldn't rely on military pork to keeps its enshitified commercial arm in the air. In fact if I were in some kind of gov procurement position I'd be looking very hard at the quality, costs, and reliability of Boeing's military projects right now.
CPLX 3y ago
Read the article. It proposes breaking it up into competitive firms, not having the government run it. Its premise is actually that it’s essentially a government run entity now, and that’s what needs to change.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Why, would US govt run it any better?! If you think financial types can't run an engineering and manufacturing business, wait until you see the politicians try.

by yyyfb 3y ago

Why, would US govt run it any better?! If you think financial types can't run an engineering and manufacturing business, wait until you see the politicians try.

tenebrisalietum 3y ago

You trust the gov to run the military, which is literally essential to the nation's survival, so why not?

anovikov 3y ago
Maybe that's the problem actually. We have to wait till Elon Musk turns his eye on the military and starts running it no matter what the states think of it.
- soupfordummies 3y ago
  Well there’s a nice horrifying thought on a Saturday morning :D
- 303uru 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - the_only_law 3y ago
    [flagged]
jvanderbot 3y ago
Gp made a bait and switch, equating government ownership with Congress in the board room. The implication doesn't ring true
- crystaln 3y ago
  The military is not a business. It doesn’t have a revenue model that tries to maintain solvency.
  - grecy 3y ago
    Given large companies get bailouts whenever they need them, I would argue the same is true of many companies in the US.
    - abduhl 3y ago
      Name the last large company to receive a bailout. This question is important to see where you draw the line on something being a “bailout.”
      - grecy 3y ago
        https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list 991 times for a total of $635B
        abduhl 3y ago
        This list includes companies that received <$10,000 (and which was paid back entirely, for example the one below). It sounds like any amount of money from the government is a bailout by your metric. Or perhaps your definition is more narrow since the list only includes financial institutions and automakers, so maybe it's only banks or automakers that receive money from the government? To be less charitable, I'm pretty sure you're just reciting some stupid Twitter/Reddit talking point that you agree with and that you have no principled stance on this beyond "Arghhhhh I hate big corps! The system sucks! Corporations privatize profits and socialize losses!" https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/entities/927-east-end-baptist-tabernacle-federal-credit-union https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/entities/927-east-en...
        grecy 3y ago
        It's interesting how quick you are to jump into an ad hominem attack, rather than discuss the topic at hand. Please don't do that. It makes your argument look very weak, and it's not polite. We're here to have a discussion, not attack people.
crystaln 3y ago
I’m not sure it you’re aware of the inefficiencies and corruption of the military, or the fact that - it’s a cost center. It’s also something we are able to spend unlimited funds on because it is existential. And privatizing the military would be a terrible idea. We definitely can’t afford to operate other industries the way we operate the military, which consumes 15% of the annual budget.
- the_snooze 3y ago
  Efficiency can be a problem in and of itself. Efficiency is a fine enough goal, though too often companies pursue it to the point that other important values like safety, resiliency, and long-term stability fall by the wayside. They'll also pursue efficiency by externalizing costs and risks to other parties. That's basically what you see in the rail shipping industry [1]. Companies will naturally pursue effiency. Nationalizing a company may be going too far, but we need something else (i.e., government) to pressure them to maintain other values too. [1] https://www.propublica.org/article/train-derailment-long-trains https://www.propublica.org/article/train-derailment-long-tra...
yyyfb 3y ago
Trust by default. The difference is, I don't trust anyone else to run the military.
paxys 3y ago
The US military isn't exactly the picture of efficiency. Let Boeing lose a trillion dollars every year and don't subject it to audits or any other oversight then yeah, I'm sure the government will run it great.
peterfirefly 3y ago
And the military is horribly inefficient. So why not privatize it? Because that would almost certainly lead to other, very bad, outcomes...
- TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
  Military procurement in the US is already privatised in everything but name. The brass get a place at the top table in matters of national policy and critical event response, but procurement is essentially privatised, with an open door between senior military figures, politicians, senior contractors/consultants, and C-Suite. Boeing is one the poster children for that. Costs would definitely be saved if there were more defence and aerospace bidders and engineering cultures, and Boeing couldn't rely on military pork to keeps its enshitified commercial arm in the air. In fact if I were in some kind of gov procurement position I'd be looking very hard at the quality, costs, and reliability of Boeing's military projects right now.

CPLX 3y ago

Read the article. It proposes breaking it up into competitive firms, not having the government run it. Its premise is actually that it’s essentially a government run entity now, and that’s what needs to change.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]