Criticize my speech to OWS

[Pup]

You seem to be saying that a public good/service costs less than a private good/service.

No, I'm saying it's only specifically true for some things, like roads, that are more inefficient to maintain privately.

For one thing, we haven't even touched on eminent domain. I'm assuming that if taxes would be considered stealing, eminent domain would be considered even more stealing, regardless whether there was compensation, so it wouldn't be allowed either.

Try building a nationwide system of roads cheaply and efficiently without that. Has any nation successfully developed and maintained all its roads entirely privately, with no government interference at all, not even eminent domain? I don't know, but I'd be curious to know how it was done.

 

[WildCat]

This idea of public stuff being cheaper because it doesn't require profit ignores the inherent inefficiency of bureaucracy and top-down control.

It really depends on the nature of the service. Roads, for example, will be much cheaper if owned by the government because only the government can design them in an efficient manner, so they all connect for example. And acquiring the land on which to build them. Making widgets? Not so much.

Imagine if all roads were private, and every 40 feet or so had a different owner and different rates at the toll gate. Not very efficient.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Imagine if all roads were private, and every 40 feet or so had a different owner and different rates at the toll gate. Not very efficient.

Might work with some sort of electronic billing system and perhaps a GPS application that could cost your route options.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

No socialist, however, will tell you that a public system, administered by a bureaucracy with no self-interest toward making it efficient, COSTS LESS to the taxpayer than the same service paid for privately.

Except healthcare, which has been shown over and over again to be cheaper and more efficient under government control.

 

[citizenzen]

Except healthcare, which has been shown over and over again to be cheaper and more efficient under government control.

There are certain endeavors that require a government to fund and control because there is no immediate financial benefit and tremendous development costs. What company could have started the space program or dug the Panama Canal?

I simply don't buy the government is inherently inefficient, and unless someone can produce credible studies to prove it, I'm just going to assume it's a exaggeration based on one's political prejudice.

Enron, British Petroleum, Bernie Madoff, Goldman Sachs, Mad Cow, salmonella, exploding gas pipelines and others amply demonstrate that the private sector can be as corrupt, inept and inefficient as the government. IMO, this has way more to do with the people in general, than any particular sector they're working in.

 

[Roxane]

Here's a speech I wrote for my local OWS a week or so ago to try my best to explain the current economic crisis in the US. I was wondering if anyone cared to critique it, I realize that I am not the best writer and there may be a typo or grammatical error in there. I tried to keep it as simple to understand for the "everyman" as I could. I trust the opinions of the JREF and would love to hear some criticisms of this piece...

In order to better appeal to your core audience, I recommend replacing all of the words with pizza.

 

[WildCat]

Might work with some sort of electronic billing system and perhaps a GPS application that could cost your route options.

If every single owner adopts such, and that's not very likely. And I know I'm going to charge $100 toll for my 40' of road, if you don't like it you can take the 100 mile detour.

 

[trustbutverify]

In order to better appeal to your core audience, I recommend replacing all of the words with pizza.

Should he go for toppings?

 

[Tippit]

The economic effect of the government printing a dollar is identical to that of a counterfeiter printing a dollar (except that they would spend the dollar differently).

That said, using emotive terms like "counterfeiting" to describe the government's actions is more a case of style over substance.

One could argue that a counterfeiter would likely spend their counterfeit money more beneficially, by at least not spending it on tanks, bombs, and bullets.

 

[Robrob]

It really depends on the nature of the service. Roads, for example, will be much cheaper if owned by the government because only the government can design them in an efficient manner, so they all connect for example. And acquiring the land on which to build them. Making widgets? Not so much.

Imagine if all roads were private, and every 40 feet or so had a different owner and different rates at the toll gate. Not very efficient.

You are correct. Most if not all of those arguments fall apart when confronted with economic realities such as economy of scale or game theory.