US Presidential Candidates

Nico wrote:Strangely enough, I recently read an article about a study on violence in American prisons, according to which for-profit prisons experience upwards of 20% more incidents of serious violence than state- or federal-run prisons - because the cost-saving measures those for-profit prisons implement tend to reduce the inmates to faceless numbers instead of human beings.

Of course, privately-run prisons is such a deception. Their incomes are entirely dependent on the government.

It´s pretty much corruption with good PR.

Related note. When our telephones went from monopoly provider to duopoly to whatever it is ow, customer service went down hill each time.
So did maintenence.

Both, of course, are net costs so when cost cutting occures they got cut.

Because future problems bought about by rash measures will be the next persons problem.

An attitude that didn't afflict the telco when it was a government entity.

Some services, by their vey nature, are better provided by the government. (Even if it's private sector contractors doing the actual work)

Power lines and phone lines are a good example, roads are a better one.

The socialist in me says basic health insurance also.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Tenshinai wrote:
snip

Private or public has NOTHING to do with which is more efficient.

Who runs the project and what s/he has to work with has everything to do with it.

Right on, brother!

Tenshinai wrote:Government money is only pisspoor at growth if it´s used to pander to the rich.

Or the politically connected. Too often, this is just repeating the statement in different words


IMO, the primary advantage in the private sector is with small innovative companies. An example would be:

http://www.rocketheater.com

Mr. Huddleston took the rocket heater concept (The most efficient known wood stove), did the work and spent the money to get it well engineered and UL listed for indoor use. They transformed their garage into a microfactory. I hope they also set up good IP protection! They plan to spend a year to see if it can be a viable business (about 7 months now) and then write off the expenses if they can't.

"Live long and prosper"

Creative solutions often don't work. It seems better for people to try them with their own money, and then reward the ones who get good results. If people want to take chances, and many do, this is better than gambling. The X-prizes and the patent system are two ways to do that. I'd give strong odds that both get misused

The major problem on the business side is if there isn't a strong company culture of innovation, then too often un-creative people who are only interested in the income take over as the companies get bigger. OTOH, some bureaucracies reward the bosses according to the number of people under them instead of for effectiveness

Annachie wrote:Related note. When our telephones went from monopoly provider to duopoly to whatever it is ow, customer service went down hill each time.
So did maintenence.

Same here.

Some services, by their vey nature, are better provided by the government. (Even if it's private sector contractors doing the actual work)

That was tried by the railroads here, disaster is probably a too nice word for the result.

Especially dealing with severe weather has been exceptionally badly affected.

DDHv wrote:Or the politically connected. Too often, this is just repeating the statement in different words

Too often yes, one way or another.

DDHv wrote:IMO, the primary advantage in the private sector is with small innovative companies.

Yes and no. Small innovative companies have a hideously poor survival rate, more than 4 out of 5 tend to crash and burn within just a few years.

In fact, the best chance such companies has is if they are created in countries where there is government support for them, the problem with that being that while you DO raise the amount of such companies that are successful drastically, you still tend to have at least as many companies that fail as succeeds, meaning that governments running those kind of schemes are IN THEORY wasting a crapload of money.

As opposed to "in theory", such schemes tend to generate a lot of extra small to mediumsized businesses, making it extremely difficult to figure out if the money spent by the government ends up as a win or loss.
Most cases, it can be argued as a win, but there have been some very obvious losses as well, and some are just impossible to say.

DDHv wrote:Creative solutions often don't work. It seems better for people to try them with their own money, and then reward the ones who get good results.

Actually, the opposite is true. Because far too often, creative solutions are NOT profitable. At least not the first year, or maybe the first decade, or even the first CENTURY.

Meaning that most creative and "futuristic" solutions are simply unrealistic for anything but a government.

Could anyone but a government have gotten people walking on the moon in the 1960s?
Not a chance.

And you might enjoy the irony in how the US space program worked its way there by employing a strictly "planned economy", while the USSR ran its space program in a highly competitive "market economy" style(and it was ever only actually aiming to put people on the moon as a response to USA stating they would do that, and their manned moon program was never really coherent as a result).

DDHv wrote:the patent system are two ways to do that.

Do you have ANY idea how difficult it is to get an ironclad patent issued?
Or how expensive?

Or how often big companies rip off the actual inventors?

Or pull off abusive stunts like Rambus did? They took part in the JEDEC cooperation to set up standards for computer RAM, then took the knowledge from there and against the rules of JEDEC made patents, vital to the specs decided on, which resulted in them getting paid royalties for over 15 years, because they managed, just barely, to claim that they had not actually done ANYTHING illegal at all, oh no...

DDHv wrote:The major problem on the business side is if there isn't a strong company culture of innovation, then too often un-creative people who are only interested in the income take over as the companies get bigger. OTOH, some bureaucracies reward the bosses according to the number of people under them instead of for effectiveness

And that, is sadly just the beginning. I´ve seen and heard far too many horror stories about companies that isn´t just having a culture of non-innovation, but instead outright have a culture of absolute non-change, anything even resembling innovation getting people sacked.

There was a German ex military guy on another forum who had some especially nasty experiences with the military industry in several countries...
It´s often been said that the military industry in USSR was a creature of its own, with an economy separate from everything else, leeching from the rest of society.

Sadly, that description fits a whole bundle of companies in the supposedly so much better off market economy nations of today.


There is also nowadays sadly a drive towards increased detail control over workers, made possible through computerisation, like how a worker at an assembly line commented that he had 9 seconds to do his job, not 10, NOT 8, but exactly 9 every time, or how a worker at a warehouse now always has a calculated time he must make, or he gets a call from the boss wondering what he´s doing, too little time to walk normally, so very fast walk or jog to get to the right place and then expedite the order exactly on time...

This is a stupid development, it may provide predictability and all, but it also completely kills individuals as well as increasing unhealth and removing any chance for further improvements.

At the same time as we on average work more hours per year than a medieval peasant.
While reintroducing the worst parts of the assembly line production to the world, the things that were killed off decades ago because of their many bad effects.

Tenshinai wrote:Yes and no. Small innovative companies have a hideously poor survival rate, more than 4 out of 5 tend to crash and burn within just a few years.

In fact, the best chance such companies has is if they are created in countries where there is government support for them, the problem with that being that while you DO raise the amount of such companies that are successful drastically, you still tend to have at least as many companies that fail as succeeds, meaning that governments running those kind of schemes are IN THEORY wasting a crapload of money.

We should take into account why start-ups fail. Some of the common reasons are:

1. They know their product but don't know how to run a business. Often this results in the small company developing a good idea being bought up by a larger company that has the expertise and capital to bring it to market. This is not a "fail", actually, but it does mean that the original company vanishes.

2. Patent problems. Some innovators work up a great idea, then discover that it depends on something that was researched and patented elsewhere. This is made worse by "patent vultures" who make a business out of buying up undeveloped rights for the purpose of suing anyone who actually works hard enough to make the idea profitable.

3. Family problems. Many small businesses are run and staffed by family members, which brings personal conflicts into the workplace. By nature, families are peer networks and businesses are hierarchies. It's tough to get the two to mix.

4. Cult of personality. Often, startup are built around one or two people with ideas and drive. The business can wind up being all about the central figure(s), with a "my way or the highway" culture that stifles innovation and productivity.

5. Pace of change. New tech is rolling out all the time, and if you can't make your idea marketable quickly you could be left behind. Under-capitalization makes it hard from start-ups to get traction before the market passes them by.

The US government established the Small Business Administration in 1953 to help innovators and entrepreneurs with problems like these. It helps find financing, provides business advice, and partners with business schools to involve students in real-life businesses. Like all government programs, it needs some overhaul, but it's still a great idea. It helps provide local jobs and fosters development to keep us competitive in the world economy.

With this kind of help, even the entrepreneurs who fail the first time learn things that will help when they try again, as they often do.

dscott8 wrote:
We should take into account why start-ups fail. Some of the common reasons are:

1. They know their product but don't know how to run a business. Often this results in the small company developing a good idea being bought up by a larger company that has the expertise and capital to bring it to market. This is not a "fail", actually, but it does mean that the original company vanishes.

2. Patent problems. Some innovators work up a great idea, then discover that it depends on something that was researched and patented elsewhere. This is made worse by "patent vultures" who make a business out of buying up undeveloped rights for the purpose of suing anyone who actually works hard enough to make the idea profitable.

3. Family problems. Many small businesses are run and staffed by family members, which brings personal conflicts into the workplace. By nature, families are peer networks and businesses are hierarchies. It's tough to get the two to mix.

4. Cult of personality. Often, startup are built around one or two people with ideas and drive. The business can wind up being all about the central figure(s), with a "my way or the highway" culture that stifles innovation and productivity.

5. Pace of change. New tech is rolling out all the time, and if you can't make your idea marketable quickly you could be left behind. Under-capitalization makes it hard from start-ups to get traction before the market passes them by.

The US government established the Small Business Administration in 1953 to help innovators and entrepreneurs with problems like these. It helps find financing, provides business advice, and partners with business schools to involve students in real-life businesses. Like all government programs, it needs some overhaul, but it's still a great idea. It helps provide local jobs and fosters development to keep us competitive in the world economy.

With this kind of help, even the entrepreneurs who fail the first time learn things that will help when they try again, as they often do.

You missed the issue of previously established larger companies hogging the existing market like a teddybear.

Tenshinai wrote:You missed the issue of previously established larger companies hogging the existing market like a teddybear.

Part of the business savvy is avoiding that kind of thing, e.g. "My new cola drink is going to wipe Coke and Pepsi right off the map!" You couldn't start a new conventional American car company today, but if you have something different, like Tesla, you at least have a shot.

Innovators, by definition, are promoting something new, even if it's an alternative to an existing market giant. You can't sell the same-old same-old.

Hillary Clinton has to be the worst campaigner there ever was. After the past few weeks of Trump-foot-in-mouth disease, the latest RCP polls show between a 2%-5% lead nationally for the former Senator from NY. That's down from near double digit leads a couple of weeks ago.

Trump should be buried, but she is letting him hang around.

PeterZ wrote:Hillary Clinton has to be the worst campaigner there ever was. After the past few weeks of Trump-foot-in-mouth disease, the latest RCP polls show between a 2%-5% lead nationally for the former Senator from NY. That's down from near double digit leads a couple of weeks ago.

Trump should be buried, but she is letting him hang around.

Mmm...

Funny how you dissasociate yourself from the rest of the population like that. Reread the last 10 pages of the thread and it should be bloody damn well obvious why she isn´t doing better. Because maybe 1/5 of the US voters agree completely with your views in previous pages.

And combined with the strict 2 party system your election system enforces, that may very well be enough to elect someone who isn´t even competent enough to command a rowboat.