As I already posted in this thread, the decline is not due to a decrease in the labor pool. The labor pool actually increased in September. barfo
Shouldn't govt. really only spend on things that the private sector can't? This channel is one I watch maybe 2-3 hours a week. https://www.freespeech.org/ It's entirely funded by contributions of viewers. So there clearly is no need for government to fund television. Plus I think there's always going to be the question of bias and the threat of taking away its funding. It can't be independent or even really trustworthy.
Any good news about the country is a conspiracy aganist Ronmey by the democrats. Any bad news about the country is a direct indication of how bad Obama is as president.
The a-bomb (Manhattan Project), moon program, military, ambassadors, legal system, post office, fire departments, police departments, and similar things. In the case of the last 3 (post office, fire, police), you could privatize those, but I think there's enough evidence in history that your mail might get "lost" or your house mysteriously catch fire if you don't pay the proscribed fees. Police is an interesting thing to consider. In Vegas, it sure seemed to me that 9 of 10 "police" were private security guards watching the casinos and other properties. When someone did something illegal in a casino (robbery, shoplift, etc.), the security guards would hold them until the police showed up and took them into custody. I think you at least need that much of a police force. The casinos got the service level exactly as they wanted, while the people they detained got their full civil rights. The a-bomb is a national defense and security issue. As well as being enormously expensive - more than any one company could be expected to pay. The moon program was similarly so huge an expense that (at the time) no business would have paid for it. I note that just today, the private company SpaceX launched their Dragon vehicle which brought some cargo to the space station. The railroads were a public/private sector partnership. The govt. gave up the land and the railroad barons ponied up enormous amounts of cash to buy the material, lay the track, and so on. But I personally don't think the govt. has much interest in owning (raw) land.
Why can't private companies pay for a moon program? Private competition might lead to a better space program. You mention private security firms as ways to not need a police force. We have UPS and FedEx, which I believe are private mail carriers. Private fire departments would work by being called in when you need them, and then you pay their fee. Much like, I suppose, a plumber or any other private group like that you call in when you need their services.
Private companies ARE paying for something like a moon program. But JFK wanted a moon landing done within a decade (more like 6 or 7 years) while it's taken the private sector about 50 years to launch just a few times. UPS and FedEx are fine. If that's all we had and Rupert Murdoch owned them both and your favorite socialist party candidate's campaign mail wasn't getting to recipients, then what? They had private fire departments in Rome. The fire department would set fires if the homeowner refused to pay their extortion/fees. And by far most firemen are volunteers/private.
So you use what happened in Rome 2000 years ago as why privatization would not work now? How is it you can argue that privatization works for most elements of society, and people should have choice, but then freely determine that the government is the one who can do the best job for other things. One would assume, similar to a lot of private companies, that if there was a monopoly on mail carrying, a rival group would pop up. If I had my choice, obviously, as a consumer, i would choose not to use a service who intentionally loses my mail. And millions of others would do the same, and then the private company would not be able to sustain. Similar to other private companies. What stops company X from screwing over the consumer in exactly the same way now?
I would use what happened in Rome 2000 years ago as to why privatization of the fire department would not work now. I pretty much wrote that, no? If companies wanted to put out fires for fees and compete, I don't have a problem with it. Most of what the fire dept. does here is respond to medical problems, which I'm pretty sure are also handled by hospitals and private ambulance type services as well. I'm quite sure the founders chose to require a national postal system is they deemed it important for all people, rich or poor, black or white, male or female, business or individual, to have full expectation they can get a piece of mail (typically bills, right?) from one place to another. It's a kind of infrastructure. Good luck starting a competing company to FedEx and UPS. There are lots of regional and local delivery companies with excellent service (they'll stop at your place, pick up your package, and then deliver it the same day). There aren't lots of national/worldwide companies.
Except what happened in Rome happened primarily because there wasn't a second option of where a person could go to extinguish their house. If there were nothing but private companies, then a company wouldn't just go and set fires to houses, because they have no way of knowing if they profit from it. However, if there was just one place(public fire department), well, I suppose they could still extort homeowners currently, no? because there's nobody else we could call. Had another wealthy individual opposite Crassus also opened their own fire brigade, then he wouldn't have been able to exploit the people the way he had. It just seems you're certain the government can not control somethings as a public whole, but then insist that the only way to do others is publicly. Why the double standard? Wouldn't the privatization of everything have the same advantages of other private entities? Fostering competition, ultimately providing a better product for the consumer?
The entire "what happened in Rome" arguement does not hold water for you? lets take a look at many big cities in the US up until the 1930s. Same thing happened, departments fought over fires, started fires, looted buildings the whole works.
Why is the question from Democrats asking why the government shouldn't be paying for yet another program? Let's flip the question: What is the criteria for what the government should pay for?
?? Where am I asking why they shouldn't pay for yet another program? I AM asking what is the criteria. He said it should only be something that the private sector can not. So I don't understand why he assumes those can not be done privately. Why can we not privatize fire departments, mail carrying, space exploration, etc. We CAN. Would it run as well? Maybe, maybe not. But it can be done privately, so according to what was being discussed, should not be spent by the government, according to Denny. if it can be done so privately.
