3 ms·

We all eat too. Is there no place for “business” in eating? Should all restaurants be nationalized?

by CrazyStat 2y ago

citizenkeen 2y ago
No, but we try to guarantee that you have food.
- didgeoridoo 2y ago
  There’s a substantial difference between governments trying to provide a service (which they are generally terrible at) and paying for a service on behalf of those who cannot afford it (which they tend to be reasonably competent at). EBT is a pretty good program. Government grocery stores would almost certainly be an abomination (just ask your local public school cafeteria or military base mess hall). Edit: adgjlsfhk1 is correct that “generally terrible” is overstated and simplistic. Hopefully better take downthread.
  - mistersquid 2y ago
    > Government grocery stores would almost certainly be an abomination (just ask your local public school cafeteria or military base mess hall). Military bases run PXs and commissaries and these stores have reasonable (mid to high mid) quality goods.
    - freedomben 2y ago
      > Military bases run PXs and commissaries and these stores have reasonable (mid to high mid) quality goods. The PXs are pretty good but are priced comparably or higher than free-market stores off-base, and even still are subsidized by base funds. The Class Six is very well done and potentially profitable, though that's just a guess. The commissaries are much more expensive than off-base stores and likewise are subsidized by base funds. For the most part only the officer's and senior NCO's families can afford to shop at the Commissary. Disclaimer: I left active duty in the late 00s so things might have changed since then
  - adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
    the idea that the government is inherently bad at providing services is just very silly. roads, postal service, and national parks are all really great services that the government provides. the idea that the government only does things well by paying private companies to do them just doesn't have basis in reality.
    - didgeoridoo 2y ago
      I take back “generally terrible”. How about “often spotty and rarely held accountable in practice”? It’s not that governments literally cannot provide good services — it’s that when government appoints itself as a monopolist, outcomes and accountability become effectively disconnected, unless the service is so high-stakes and the quality is so abysmal that it rises to “vote the bastards out” territory.
    - freedomben 2y ago
      Agreed that the government isn't inherently bad at providing services, but I do think it's important to define how we measure "bad." For example, does "bad" mean the UX is bad? If so, then government isn't inherently bad at it (though can be, see next paragraph). If we define "bad" as "less economical (i.e. more expensive/wasteful of resources) then it does have a general tendency toward bad. It largely comes down to who is running the thing, and do they care? With private sector, they are forced to care because otherwise it will affect revenue and brand value, which will get the leader fired. The consumer is empowered with ability to spend their $ elsewhere, which rewards the better service and punishes the worse (note that this is becoming much less true in the age of giant corps, especially big tech). With government services, (particularly in monopolistic situations like the DMV), the consumer is largely powerless. They have no choice but to use the system given, and if they aren't happy they can complain but that complaint won't have any teeth (unless they happen to be politically connected of course). tldr: I most agree, but it depends on how you define "bad"
  - brnt 2y ago
    > (which they are generally terrible at) They are only as good as the people in a jurisdiction let them be. Also, the governments you have experienced are far from generally representative.
haliskerbas 2y ago
Deleted
- didgeoridoo 2y ago
  This rant is in such poor faith. Flagged.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

We all eat too. Is there no place for “business” in eating? Should all restaurants be nationalized?

citizenkeen 2y ago

No, but we try to guarantee that you have food.

didgeoridoo 2y ago
There’s a substantial difference between governments trying to provide a service (which they are generally terrible at) and paying for a service on behalf of those who cannot afford it (which they tend to be reasonably competent at). EBT is a pretty good program. Government grocery stores would almost certainly be an abomination (just ask your local public school cafeteria or military base mess hall). Edit: adgjlsfhk1 is correct that “generally terrible” is overstated and simplistic. Hopefully better take downthread.
- mistersquid 2y ago
  > Government grocery stores would almost certainly be an abomination (just ask your local public school cafeteria or military base mess hall). Military bases run PXs and commissaries and these stores have reasonable (mid to high mid) quality goods.
  - freedomben 2y ago
    > Military bases run PXs and commissaries and these stores have reasonable (mid to high mid) quality goods. The PXs are pretty good but are priced comparably or higher than free-market stores off-base, and even still are subsidized by base funds. The Class Six is very well done and potentially profitable, though that's just a guess. The commissaries are much more expensive than off-base stores and likewise are subsidized by base funds. For the most part only the officer's and senior NCO's families can afford to shop at the Commissary. Disclaimer: I left active duty in the late 00s so things might have changed since then
- adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
  the idea that the government is inherently bad at providing services is just very silly. roads, postal service, and national parks are all really great services that the government provides. the idea that the government only does things well by paying private companies to do them just doesn't have basis in reality.
  - didgeoridoo 2y ago
    I take back “generally terrible”. How about “often spotty and rarely held accountable in practice”? It’s not that governments literally cannot provide good services — it’s that when government appoints itself as a monopolist, outcomes and accountability become effectively disconnected, unless the service is so high-stakes and the quality is so abysmal that it rises to “vote the bastards out” territory.
  - freedomben 2y ago
    Agreed that the government isn't inherently bad at providing services, but I do think it's important to define how we measure "bad." For example, does "bad" mean the UX is bad? If so, then government isn't inherently bad at it (though can be, see next paragraph). If we define "bad" as "less economical (i.e. more expensive/wasteful of resources) then it does have a general tendency toward bad. It largely comes down to who is running the thing, and do they care? With private sector, they are forced to care because otherwise it will affect revenue and brand value, which will get the leader fired. The consumer is empowered with ability to spend their $ elsewhere, which rewards the better service and punishes the worse (note that this is becoming much less true in the age of giant corps, especially big tech). With government services, (particularly in monopolistic situations like the DMV), the consumer is largely powerless. They have no choice but to use the system given, and if they aren't happy they can complain but that complaint won't have any teeth (unless they happen to be politically connected of course). tldr: I most agree, but it depends on how you define "bad"
- brnt 2y ago
  > (which they are generally terrible at) They are only as good as the people in a jurisdiction let them be. Also, the governments you have experienced are far from generally representative.

haliskerbas 2y ago

Deleted

didgeoridoo 2y ago
This rant is in such poor faith. Flagged.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]