Originally Posted by Carson

I agree with you on this, honestly that why those companies are only private on paper, in reality the government's hands are all over that shit

Originally Posted by Agent_Grey

Okay conservatives, read my analysis and tell me what you think.

It is the assertion of many conservatives that the private sector is the best for handling virtually everything. The theory, to my understanding, (and correct me if I'm wrong) goes something like this:

1. Private corporations want to make profit, therefore they will run their businesses in the most efficient manner possible.

2. Private corporations are always at the risk of their consumers punishing them for amoral behavior, because they can immediately "vote with their dollars" and therefore are run in the most moral manner possible.

3. being that these two things are the case, the public sector will always be less efficient and less ethical than private corporations, both wasting tax dollars from citizens, and doing an incompetant, shortsighted job to boot.

With me so far? Or is my premise on these things wrong?

Assuming I've got it right, then how do you explain the reprehensible behavior of Haliburton in Iraq?

I watched hearings this weekend on their various practices, and I was appalled at their behavior.

They have killed soldiers indirectly by letting things fall of the backs of trucks for greater profitability elsewhere, not to mention selling weapons to potentially US unfriendly groups.

They have killed soldiers DIRECTLY by improperly de-toxifying water used in their shower facilities (17 dead from this incident.)

They have threatened the health of soldiers by shipping edibles and ice in trucks used to cart corpses around without cleaning in between.

They have gouged US taxpayers and Soldiers alike by overcharging for food, laundry, and other services, not to mention occaisonally charging for services not even being used.

They have displayed repeated belligerent behavior to their own employees when any dissent is expressed.

Et ceterra, et ceterra, et ceterra.

So where's the invisible hand of the market in an example like this? They have no competition, no legal jurrisdiction to be prosecuted in, no incentive to do good work, and no incentive to even be efficient.

How would the public sector, either our government or the Iraqi government do a worse job than these guys?

Originally Posted by Agent_Grey

Halliburton is indisputably a private corporation. They are for-profit. They seek to make money. The fact they are awarded government contracts by conservatives is just another point against the logically bankrupt notion that conservatives seek to benefit the private sector for the good of all of us.

They seek to benefit the private sector for the sake of the private sector.

And before you go on some-tirade about how I'm some kind of anti-business communist, elt me clarify my personal perspective in one short paragraph:

There *are* things that business, even big business, is better for. I have no problem with anything from Cereal to I-pods being manufactured by for-profit companies, along with almost any consumer good. I just think that other things, such as nation building (Haliburton) Energy suppy (Enron) and Medicine (Merk) run counter to the very benefits privatization is supposed to bestow, hence the obvious problems that have emerged.

Originally Posted by BO Nafide

"in reality the government's hands are all over that shit." That explains Agent Greys question. Private individuals are not paying Haliberton, the govornment is.

Lets look at the formula together.

The Government + alot of OUR money = ALOT of

Really pretty simple.

Originally Posted by Carson

Yeah no shit, thats why I'm saying Halliburton is not really a private company

Originally Posted by BO Nafide

I,m feeling that.

Originally Posted by Carson

you should explain it to Agent Gray than because he doesn't get it

Originally Posted by pjwky

Well, Well: Does any of this surprise anyone?

The trend to make what was historically "publically owned & publically responsible organizations" a corporation victim is the Major Method that Administrations Have used to Transfere Public Tax Payer Monies to the Private Sector. Haliberton & Blackwater are good examples: together they have far more mercinaries in Iraq then the US government, and the money to pay for this comes from the public treasury to the corporate bank accounts.

Guess what, the Iraq war is good business for these corporations: vast public money it shifted into privately owned corporations: and large amounts of money are used to advance any cause that will continue & enhance these corporations profits from this war. Just one more big "thank you George Bush & Dick Cheney."

Another shift from public money to corporate bank accounts occurs with the privately owned prison systems. What is really scarry here, is that the huge private prison corporations also lobbies for longer prison sentences, and for less money to public education. [It seems that many studies have shown that in areas where education is enchance by public funds, there is less crime; of course less crime is not a profit maker for these private prison corporations.]

Therefore, it is really a valid public question as to wither or not we as a Nation want profit to the Corporate Owners to be the driving force behind such important policies as "War or Crime or Education." Crime & Punishment, Fighting Wars, & Public Education have always been entrusted to Our Government which in our nation is "supposedly" responsible to & owned by the American People: shifting these functions to the private sector is a travesty, and a not so subtle method of stealing money & decision-making from the American People. ...pjwky

Originally Posted by Carson

What most people want most is for our government to be effiecient, private companies are way more effiecient, case closed.