Why is the "private sector" better than the "public sector"?

[kentuck]

Teachers, firemen, and policemen are losing their jobs because they are part of the public sector rather than the private sector. According to some on the right, they are useless eaters and leeches, that are worse than anyone that works in the private sector. That would include pimps, whores, radio propagandists, and private equity thieves. These folks that put their lives on the line to make other people's lives better and safer are vilified as robbers of tax revenues, as if their services are unneeded and worthless.

I can think of a lot of "private sector" jobs that do not serve society and we should be so lucky as to replace them with "public sector" jobs that make our country a better and healthier place to live. I am sick of their bullshit. They can take their "private sector" crap and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.

[tblue]

1. It's a matter of scapegoating and ignorance.

It's so dumb and shortsighted.

[kentuck]

2. As if everyone in the private sector walks on water....

...when they, primarily, are only into making profits for themselves and doing nothing for society. They are delusional.

[a kennedy]

9. I got a public sector job in 1972.....when all my friends went to college....my parents couldn't

afford to send me to college because my 3 older brothers were going, so I got a "public service job"..... and no raises...no promotions....no increases in job titles because for 32 years the state didn't have the cash to give us, they just kept saying you're getting benefits to your health and retirement fund instead to "balance" the state budget. Now, they want to take it all away.....because the cities and states can't afford the payments to the retirement fund. GIVE ME A F*CKING BREAK, I CARRIED YOUR ARSE FOR 32 YEARS......AND NOW, NOW YOU CAN'T CARRY MINE???? D*MN!!!!!!

[nanabugg]

34. AND most of the so-called "private sector" jobsl contract with the government and steal

the government blind with cost overruns, overpriced materials etc. A lot of those jobs could be performed at much less cost and better quality by the military or other sectors of the government. Now that the private sector has shit all over the retirement and benefit funds of their employees, they have succeeded in turning their employees against public service workers in a fit of envy as the retirement funds and benefits have been largely protected by those nasty public sector fund managers. Notice I said private sector "employees" and public sector "workers." there is a huge difference.

The banksters and other corporate fraud managers have successfully pitted employees against workers when the employees should be railing about what happened to them beginning with ENRON through the rest of Wall Street.

[TheKentuckian]

3. Private gives much better odds for exploitative profit

and you move the resource into the hands of the few or the one and subtract from the all which means greater concentration of power.

The rubes want it because they have it drilled into their heads because the propagandist play on pettiness, greed, the quickness to scapegoat the weak, the worship of the powerful, and lazy ass thinking of those addicted to their stream of bullshit.

[freshwest]

4. Nailed it.

[Art_from_Ark]

14. It goes back to at least that idiot Reagan

who kept harping that "government is the problem" (of course, it was when he was running, er, ruining it).

[hifiguy]

49. I concur in the opinion of TheKentuckian. nt

[Strelnikov_]

83. Ka-Ching n/t

[MnExpat]

5. You have hit on the reason that the greedy capitalists were so afraid of the Soviet Union.

The likes of Thatcher and Reagan were doing the bidding of the international banksters when they endeavored to destroy the system that allowed for everybody to be in the public sector and share equally in the fruits of their labors. Private sector capital only exists to acquire wealth for the 1% of the overlords while the people that do the real work get screwed.

When the state owns the farms and factories and all the other means of production there is no difference between a teacher, a scientist, an auto mechanic, a policeman, fireman or a doctor. No Limbaughs or Becks would be allowed to exist. The glorious arts, theater, the ballet, authors and painters are valued for their creativity, not the money they can wallow in. All Labor is valued and equal and accrues benefit to the individual and the state.

But sadly no, some even celebrated the demise of the great Soviet experiment and celebrated the fools that destroyed it.

[Zalatix]

7. The USSR collapsed because of its dynasty of brutal dictatorships.

Problem is, Capitalism is rapidly becoming a dictatorship of the Plutocracy.

[MnExpat]

15. Marks and Engles both agreed that revolution sometimes has comes from the barrel of a gun

and the clingers to private property had to "nudged" in the proper direction in order for the system to work. Soviet Russia stood no chance against the outside influences of the European moneyed familys and the grand experiment was doomed. They couldn't be left to succeed or the rest of Europe would have demanded the same.

[tritsofme]

65. The "European moneyed familys" would that be the JOOOOOOOS??

[MnExpat]

69. I would expect that kind of

racist anti-semitic comment on some wing-nut site, not here.

Aren't you violating some TOS or something?

[tritsofme]

82. Give me a break.

As if that wasn't your implication.

[tralala]

70. what?

[Bake]

44. The Soviet Experiment might work in an ideal world.

But this world, as shown by the results of the Soviet Experiment, is far from ideal. Central planning just doesn't work in the real world, because the planners themselves are flawed--greedy, stupid, inept, whatever.

The "fools that destroyed it" were not the capitalists, they were the Soviets themselves.

Bake

[tralala]

76. You would be justified in saying that if the Soviet Union didn't last ~65 years

[Bake]

77. 65 years is NOTHING.

Hell, you're talking about a huge geographic region with lots of natural resources. I'm surprised they managed to tank it in ONLY 65 years.

Bake

[tralala]

78. Plus the fact they became terminal

only AFTER the implementation of perestroika and glasnost points to something other than the failure of central planning being the cause of their dissolution.

[Zalatix]

97. The problem could have been the pesky anti-Semitic dictatorship thingy.

[joshcryer]

114. Perestroika was a *result* of their failure, not the reason for it.

The Soviet Bloc was breaking away decades before perestroika came into being, and the Bloc was what sustained Russia for the most part. Some of those states are some of the most prosperous states in the entire world, while Russia festers from his crony theft and inability to have ever been a sustainable approach.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

88. Sears and Roebuck lasted longer

And they never killed tens of millions of their own customers.

[badtoworse]

6. If private sector employees didn't first earn the money and pay taxes...

...where would the money to pay the public sector employees come from? Without the private sector adding value, there would be nothing to tax and government would have no revenue to pay anyone.

[kentuck]

8. And if you didn't have a teacher to teach you how to read...

you would not have a job to earn the big bucks and pay your measly share of taxes...One is not independent of the other. They are dependent on each other. A private sector that exists merely to make profits is a sick and useless society.

[badtoworse]

27. I went to private schools and I have done quite well.

As a society, we need many services, but they don't have to be provided by public servants. A great many services currently done by the public sector could easily be contracted out and paid for by taxing the wealth created by the private sector.

[mmonk]

32. Corporate charters aren't created generally to benefit the public.

They are created to bring profit to the share holders as their only fiduciary duty. That duty at times can be at the expense of the public interest.

[badtoworse]

33. The same is true for public sector workers. Who do you think public employee unions represent?

[girl gone mad]

62. If the private sector can provide a service more efficiently..

and inexpensively than the public sector, maybe the should. On the other hand, efficiency and cost should not be the only considerations in play. Often the private sector reduces costs using tactics such as labor arbitrage, substituting lower quality materials, under-training employees and reducing safety standards. The private sector also generally demands excessive compensation for executives and investors. These activities do not serve the public good and might cause public harm.

What problem does contracting our services and paying for them through tax increases solve? Can you provide some examples?

[jmowreader]

101. A great many services would be more expensive if we did that

My feeling on this: Any government service you need only part of the time should be contracted to the private sector. Quickest example I can think of is printing: presses are expensive and they have to run all the time to be worth owning. So the government should buy its printing from companies who print commercial work too--which is what's happened: the Government Printing Office prints almost nothing in-house (legislation, mostly, and they run that on big copiers called Docutechs these days) and contracts out hundreds of millions of dollars worth of work every year.

Any government service you need all the time, like road maintenance, cops, firefighters, teachers, sailors...shall I go on?...should be done by the public sector because it's cheaper that way--there's no profit margin involved.

[slackmaster]

90. Nobody ever got a job before there were public school teachers to teach them how to read.

[badtoworse]

107. I never went to public school...

...and I can read!

[girl gone mad]

21. If the federal government didn't first spend the money into existence..

how would the private sector be able to pay taxes?

[badtoworse]

30. The concept of money existed before the government started printing it.

After barter, it was coinage that had intrinsic value. The government did not invent money, print a lot of it and convince people that it was valuable. Government have always been limited in what they can do by the amount of value they take from the private sector. Greece is a great example of that - tax evasion is a cottage industry and a substantial amount of potential revenue goes uncollected. This greatly diminishes the government's ability to pay its public workers and provide basic services. Why doesn't the Greek government just "spend money into existence"? (You've made the point about a sovereign currency before. Printing more money would not add value; it would just dilute the value of what currently existed and make everything more expensive.)

[CJCRANE]

46. Countries without governments don't do so well.

I'm pretty sure there is a happy medium of public / private sector employment below which a country starts to go downhill.

A country where nearly everything is in private hands will start to fall apart before too long, just look at Somalia.

If you look at the most successful western economies they all have a strong, fairly efficient and organized government base. Take that way and just leave capitalism and you become no different than a third world country.

[badtoworse]

55. See Post No. 54

[girl gone mad]

56. The money Americans use today..

is solely created by the federal government.

Our money, the dollar, derives its value primarily from taxation. If the US federal government hadn't first spent the money into existence, you would not be able to pay your taxes - state, local or federal.

Obviously the concept of money, tokens, barter, trade, etc. have existed for centuries. If you want to eliminate dollars and go back to some other type of system so that the macroeconomic picture can more closely resemble your ideological narrative, good luck, you'll have your work cut out.

It's not accurate to say that governments are limited by "value" taken from the private sector (unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by this). Government spending by flexible exchange rate sovereign currency regimes is limited by restraints on resources and productive capacity, not by some abstract concept of "private sector value". In the USA, the private sector is presently limited by a lack of spending from the federal government, opposite to what you claim.

Greece is not a monetarily sovereign nation and does not pertain to this discussion.

[badtoworse]

105. In my (non-economist) opinion money derives its value from the good and services you can buy with it

Today's money has no intrinsic value and is only valuable to the extent that it has purchasing power. It's a tool for measuring "value" and simplifies what would otherwise be a complicated, awkward barter system for conducting transactions. If you make $50,000 per year, it would be just as accurate to measure your salary in terms of the groceries, gasoline, rent, entertainment, etc. that you can obtain with that much money. Those goods and services represent the value of that much money, but that value was created by the farmer that grew the crops, the trucking company that brought them to market and the grocer that sold them. The value in the gasoline was created by the E&P company, the refiner, the trucker and the gas station owner. All of that value was created by private sector workers and businesses.

Government needs goods and services (i.e., things that have value) so it levies taxes and uses the money to pay for them. It took a portion of the value that was created by the private sector; it did not create the value itself. There is only so much "value" created in an economy (I think they call this something like GDP) and printing more money won't create value; it should result in money with less buying power.

There are situations where the government can add value, but these involve the government operating at a profit. A government getting royalties from leasing land to energy production is an example. Another would be a federal power agency (like Bonneville) selling electricity. The Post Office would be an example if it was turning a profit. There are ways the government can indircetly add value, such educating the kids. I would look at these examples as the government investing the value created in the private sector and generating a return. The key point is the government would not have been able to do any of those things without drawing value from the private sector in the form of taxes (Sure, public employees pay taxes, but their jobs came about because that government entity was initially funded by some private sector worker paying his taxes).

I don't agree that Greece is irrelevant because it's not a sovereign currency. The reality is that it is not getting enough "value" from its citizens in the form of taxes to pay its bills. If it did have the capability to print more money and did that, bond yields would still soar and prices would skyrocket. That may be different than the current situation, but it doesn't sound like it's an improvement.

I'm not an economist; I'm an engineer by background and I've worked in the electric power business for the last 30 years. Maybe my view is simplistic, but it seems logical to me. Waat is your background?

[U4ikLefty]

109. Stick to engineering.

This comes from an engineer...how embarrassing.

[girl gone mad]

115. Wow, you get a lot of things really wrong here.

Let's just start with the basics.

When you talk about government "operating at a profit", that profit represents money taken out of the private sector (a net loss of private sector financial assets). Keep in mind that a government deficit represents a private sector surplus.

Taxes don't fund the federal government. The government could still spend even if it ceased collecting taxes. That's the reality of fiat currency, issued by the government and not convertible to commodities or hard assets. Federal taxes serve the important function of controlling inflation and creating stable demand for our fiat currency.

The government can purchase goods and services from the private sector using its fiat money. Often this spending generates significant value. Think of all of the money the government spent in WWII and how this spending greatly expanded our productive capacity. The planes and bombs and ships we built during the war were real. After the war, many of the additional factories the government had spent money building were converted and used to manufacture consumer products.

[slackmaster]

91. Seashells, salt, or flakes of metal found in streams

[Puzzledtraveller]

29. Shame on you for inserting logic into this

I ve been a public employee for all my working years and I totally appreciate and respect the private sector, they pay my salary!

[CJCRANE]

45. Customers pay private salaries - what goes around comes around.

You need a goverment to maintain infrastructure, quality standards and organization. The onlycountry in recent years which had capitalism without a government was Somalia and we can see what happened there.

[girl gone mad]

57. I'm assuming you're paid in dollars.

Does the private sector issue dollars?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

93. The amount of dollars in circulation is based on

the economic activity of the private sector. If there is $10 trillion in economic activity the fed will (should) keep $10 trillion in currency in circulation. The fed will expand or contract the money supply based on prevailing economic conditions. That money is then provided to the banks who loan it and or use it to pay demands.

There are policy exceptions to this, naturally, but money doesn't come from the government spending it into the economy. The fact that the government collects tax revenues refutes that contention. If your point was even remotely correct the government would have to spend enough money every year to feed all private sector currency demands. As the US has $13 trillion economy and collects roughtly $2 trillion in tax receipts and spend roughly $3.5 trillion in spending this is demonstrably not the case.

[girl gone mad]

96. So you believe we don't have a government that spends money into the economy?

What do you believe the "G" in

GDP = C + I + G + (X - M)

stands for?

Sorry, but what you have written is woefully inaccurate.

"The fed will expand or contract the money supply based on prevailing economic conditions. That money is then provided to the banks who loan it and or use it to pay demands."

If all money were lent into existence by banks, and all loans carry an interest rate, how could our economy ever grow? How would everyone have enough money to pay back bank loans, let alone pay taxes on top of the interest? (eta: Particularly over the past 30 years when we have run a trade deficit!)

Please, just stop and take a few minutes to think it all the way through before you respond.

[girl gone mad]

98. Just for the purpose of education..

Here is an accurate description of our modern money system:

When the government “spends,” the Treasury disburses the funds by crediting bank accounts. Settlement involves transferring reserves from the Treasury’s account at the Fed to the recipient’s bank. The resulting increase in the recipient’s deposit account has no corresponding liability in the banking system. This creation is called “vertical,” or exogenous to the banking system. Since there is no corresponding liability in the banking system, this results in an increase of non-government net financial assets.

When banks create money by extending credit (loans create deposits), this occurs completely within the banking system and results in a liability for the bank (the deposit) and a corresponding asset (the loan). The customer has an asset (the deposit) and a corresponding liability (the loan). This nets to zero.

Thus vertical money created by the government affects net financial assets and horizontal money created by banks does not, although its use in the economy as productive capital can increase real assets.

The mistake that is usually made is comparing what happens in the horizontal system with what happens at the level of government accounting. At the horizontal level, debt is the basis for horizontal money creation. Therefore, it is often assumed that debt must be the basis for the creation of money by government currency issuance. This is not the case.

Reserve accounting uses the standard accounting identities, but the meaning of “liability” is not “debt.” The husband-wife analogy for Central Bank-Treasury accounting relationships is apt. Since a husband and wife are responsible for each others debts, neither can be indebted to the other. That is to say, reserve accounting is a fiction that does not represent real relationships, such as exist between a creditor and debtor in the horizontal system.

more: http://monetaryrealism.com/mmr-and-the-diagonalist-view-of-money

[JoePhilly]

51. Without the police and the courts, your private business is dead.

Think for a minute.

A private business needs a legal framework in which to thrive. Take away the police and the courts, and I can contract to provide your business with services (privately), take your money, and then do nothing. What recourse do YOU have if this occurs without a government court system.

Let's say your business makes some product and you need to ship that product. Who builds the roads to ship those products, you? No, we as a society pool our money via TAXES, so that we ALL have roads.

And of course, unless you are Mitt Romney, you know that public workers are ALSO TAX PAYERS. Which means they not only get paid via taxes, they also help pay for their own jobs.

As soon as we privatize the firefighters and the cops, and other first responders, we'll have tiered services. A poor person having a heart attack will have to wait. But a rich person having one will get "premium service".

The GOP plan is to turn the US into just one of the other 3rd world countries, in which the working class should just shut up, and be thankful for the crumbs they receive.

[badtoworse]

54. I never said we don't need any public sector jobs

There are functions that are needed and are the proper role of government. I do believe that the private sector is more important because it generates the money that gets taxed to pay for those public services. A country without a healthy. vibrant economy will not create enough wealth to pay for public services. Look at Greece - because of tax evasion and a collapsing economy, they will likely run out of money in July and will be unable to pay salaries, pensions, buy fuel, etc. Another poster pointed to Somalia as a country with a private sector but no functioning government - that is not a desirable situation as anarchy prevails (it may well come to that in Greece as well).

Both sectors are needed, but the private sector pays the bills.

[girl gone mad]

58. The private sector doesn't generate money.

You've got it backward.

If we were running a trade surplus, you might be able to make this argument, but we haven't run a surplus in over 30 years.

The public sector generates wealth and income in the private sector by issuing and spending the currency which we use to produce. When the government cuts spending (or increase taxes), it reduces income and savings in the private sector.

Fewer federal employees means less money circulating in the private sector => private sector shrinks => private sector businesses have fewer customers and can't pay their bills.

[JoePhilly]

68. Again I return to the Defense Industry.

I have friends who work in that industry. Technically, they are "private sector" workers. But their jobs are based on GOVERNMENT contracts. In other words, they get paid via TAX dollars, that are filtered through a FOR PROFIT private business.

In other words, tax dollars become salary for private workers, AND they also become PROFIT for the executives of those companies.

Defense is a HUGE part of our economy. Public money, pushed into private hands.

Consider this ... why does your phone have GPS? Did the private sector do that? Or, did the public sector create the satellite network that enables GPS on your phone? Who ran the original phone lines? Who built the interstate highway system? Which private businesses did this?

Did you hear that just the other day, a private company was able to launch a rocket and go to the space station? Do you know who's technology they relied on? Which experts did they consult with to do it?

What the public sector does is invest in technology areas years and even decades before any private entity could do so.

And now, the GOP wants to end that.

[badtoworse]

106. The private sector provided the money that enabled the government to do those things

See No. 105

[slackmaster]

92. Nobody ever conducted business before there were police or courts

[U4ikLefty]

110. Yeah, we saw the results of that scenario.

[slackmaster]

111. Yes, the police and courts have sure fixed that one

[Laura PourMeADrink]

10. When I did an assignment for the government way back when in 2004, I saw the memo

that Bush wrote - to whenever possible, hire a contractor.

The right doesn't like the public sector for one simple reason - if a govt job is created it is one
less job that their rich friends don't make money off of.

[JDPriestly]

20. Yes. Privatization = corruption. It's about pay-offs to buddies and campaign supporters.

Another right-wing scam that benefits the oligarchy.

[limpyhobbler]

24. This is an important point. It's not just abstract philosophy and ideology for the privatizers.

That's how they make their personal money, by selling of pieces of the country and looting the common treasury.

It's corrupt to the core.

When they look at a public school, they don't think about how to improve the quality.

They think about how they can make money off it, ideally to own it personally so they can collect money from it indefinitely into the future.

The last thing we need in America is for-profit corporations getting their claws into the public schools. It would be practically child abuse to allow it.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

61. absolutely...explains school vouchers - friends own private schools - more people go - more

dollars. More dollars to improve the school for their kids. And, none of them, not a single one is
a good enough actor to be believable when they act like they care that a poor child doesn't get
a voucher to go to their "school of choice." This is one of their scams they can't quite pull off

[jp11]

11. The private sector is where republicans get to pay you the least

possible offer you no benefits and you have no protection or collective bargaining. They can make suck out all the profitability while sticking the bill with the taxpayers and the end result is a lower quality service with laws and regulations that favor this private industry while leaving all the risk on the government aka the taxpayer. Simply put 'they' want to rob the taxpayers without all that pesky oversight or paying anything more than the least possible to the actual workers.

That is why the private sector is better than the public sector. Public sector is not for profit, it is about doing what needs to be done and mostly having some protections and 'rights' for workers.

[Rain Mcloud]

12. As a proud public employee

I make $10,000 to $30,000 less per year than my brethren in the private sector.
We are overseen by a former contractor who is a pedant and a braggadocio when it comes time to show off the work that "his" boys did to the COC led authorities.

Mister two-bits likes to contract to his (boys)buddies whom never seem to finish their jobs,claiming that they don't have enough time or equipment,yet they get paid the full amount of bond money.
The board raves about what great work the contractor's do,after we finish the job and correct the contractor's plebeian mistakes.

They don't give a shit about us,all they see is how much more they could have if they did not have to employ us.
Since I have been there,the work force has dwindled by two thirds and basically all that is left is us old farts who were established before we got there.
The wages have diminished from non-existent raises where we got a whopping .15 an hour(for several years worth example)then the insurance found out and raised our premiums which wiped the raises out.

Oh yeah,we public servants are living high on the hog just like all teachers make $100,000 a year too.
To those who go around talking shit about something they know nothing of,i'd like to quote another bagger; "Get A Brain,Morans!"!

[Zax2me]

13. Imagine a Repub Presidency, Judiciary, Senate and House at the same time.

And you have your answer.
Keep the power with the people.

[craigmatic]

16. It's not especially in a service economy you get low paying jobs like fast food and retail with no

benefits vs public higher paying jobs like teachers and cops which have benefits.

[lumberjack_jeff]

17. Because rich people can make a killing exploiting the private sector. n/t

[ibegurpard]

18. people trumpet how "inefficient" big government is

big business is just as bloated, bureaucratic and inefficient. I deal with a huge corporation every day in my job and trying to nail down someone for an answer or approval for something makes my head explode.

[HiPointDem]

19. because the upper 20% makes money on it.

[LeftishBrit]

22. It's a combination of hatred for paying taxes...

and being brainwashed into thinking that the private sector is much more efficient than the public sector. In my personal experience it isn't. The most inefficient, customer-unfriendly organizations that I've encountered have generally been privately run. And I have encountered a pretty badly-run public sector organization, as our County Council is one of the worst-run councils in the country IMO - but the bad private organizations that I know are MUCH worse!

And at the extreme, look at the dreadful messes created by the banks, not to mention the amount of taxpayer money that has so far gone into trying to fix these messes!

Also, there is an element of greed and wanting to get away with cutting corners. The same people who are against the public sector are generally also against any government regulations on the conduct of the private sector. They want to make as much profit as possible, including gross exploitation and insecurity for some of their employees. Then, of course, the Right tries to 'divide and rule' by persuading the exploited private-sector employees to blame their position on the 'overpaid' public employees, rather than on the people who are doing the exploiting.

I hasten to add that I am not saying that all or even most private businesses are inefficient, exploitative, or profiteering. I am speaking here of the sort of society and attitudes desired by those who are totally anti-public sector and anti-regulation.

[Skittles]

23. CORRECT

awesome post

[fizzgig]

25. i am sure as shit happy those firefighters keeping my happy self safe tonight are public employees

some of those men and women have been out there for 18, 20 hours fighting the beast of a fire just west of me. they deserve far more than they're paid.

we've seen what happens when such things are turned over to the private sector.

[Baitball Blogger]

26. Because we are run by small town plutocracies that want to get their hands directly

on that public money. They don't care what they do to teachers, policemen and firemen.

[libtodeath]

28. It is more RW bullshit

in times of recession there needs to be an expanded public sector to get money into the hands of those that will spend it.
There needs to be an automatic government jobs program for infrastructure repairs and improvements that trips the minute the economy starts to contract.

[ljm2002]

31. Because ideologues have kept repeating the mantra...

...for lo these many years...

It is an agenda that's been pushed by the corporatists. They have been very successful at it. They've bought off politicians from both parties. Democrats have made a bargain with the devil when they started going after corporate cash and started ignoring the unions -- i.e., the Third Way and neoliberalism. By doing so, they had to tone down their message, to the point where they all sound like a bunch of mealy-mouthed flim-flam artists with no spine; whereas the Republicans can continue to demagogue loudly and not fear reprisal from their corporate masters, who like what the Republicans are selling. Therefore they appear to have conviction, which voters like.

Furthermore, the advent of 401Ks and the like to replace pensions (defined contribution vs. defined benefit), has weakened the middle class, and has also given many the illusion that they are active participants in the stock market (yes yes I know, some of them / some of you actually do take an active role in how your 401Ks are managed -- but most do not, in any real sense). Anyway, this has tended to make people support the corporate agenda because they perceive it as advantageous to them to do so -- they want their 401K to retain as much value as possible, and that means they must support whatever the pundits claim will be the best for the stock market, which in turn is thought to represent the holy spirit of the invisible hand.

All the while, the 1%, or more accurately the .01% are siphoning more of the wealth upwards, and couldn't care less about the effects on the middle and working class, not to mention the poor, who they demonize at every turn.

People nowadays have this touching faith in the efficiency of the private sector. I have worked in the private sector for all of my career, and let me tell you, it ain't so. What the private sector is very efficient at is in enriching the operators, at the expense of everyone else. The slimier the operators, the more willing they are to cut corners, and cut their rivals off at the knees, the better they do. Really it's that simple. It's all about the incentives, and that is the behavior that is rewarded. I've observed it in companies large and small. No doubt there are exceptions, and no doubt the public bureaucracies have their own set of problems, but to revere the private sector as some savior is ridiculous on its face.

[tabbycat31]

35. There is no CEO getting rich off of the public sector

[CJCRANE]

48. Lots of companies get government contracts and government subsidies...

so there are lots of CEOs that get rich from government largesse.

Just think back to the Bush era - I'm sure you can think of some notorious private contractors who did well (and still do) from government contracts.

ETA: Not to mention the bank bailouts which led to huge bankers' bonuses.

[JoePhilly]

52. The CEO of Lockheed Martin would beg to differ.

As would the CEO's of many military contract companies.

Think about it ... the government collects the taxes, and then pays Lockheed Martin, and their CEO gets rich on the PROFIT. Your tax dollars, become their PROFIT, and the CEO gets rich.

Seems pretty obvious.

[4th law of robotics]

36. Both are necessary

private sector is great at giving people what they want/need if it can be produced at a profit.

And of course skimming off that pays for things that we want/need that cannot realistically turn a profit (at least not to the manufacturer).

[kentuck]

37. True, and what else are people ready to give up?

The post offices, the teachers, the firemen, the police, the roads, the bridges, the airports, the sewer systems, the water mains, the meat inspectors, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marines? What other "public services" are we willing to give up?

[4th law of robotics]

41. To choose one example:

the army for instance.

That is a public service that we need, that cannot realistically be privatized. Well it could be, but then it would no longer serve us and would rather just be a mercenary force.

For things like that we have the public sector.

I don't think the government would do a good job producing clothing or entertainment for people. Because that can all be done easily at the private level and with a far greater diversity and responsiveness to changing demands.

Security, education, transportation etc benefit everyone and can't easily be handled by some other entity.

Anyone who says we need all public or all private hasn't done their homework.

[kentuck]

43. I would agree.

Well said. I suppose it comes down to choices? What do we want from the public or the private sectors? Should we assume that the "private" sector can always do better, as some assume?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

94. I've encountered bat crazy libertarians who have suggested just such a thing

Thankfully, even conservatives look at them askance.

[4th law of robotics]

95. I'd consider them no different than hardcore

communists who sincerely believe everything should be run by the government.

Both adherents to unrealistic ideals that have been attempted and never work out the way their supporters predict.

[Romulox]

38. The idea is that the one must pay for the other--the "public sector" is not self-supporting. nt

[kentuck]

40. I would say they are investments...

so the private sector can thrive. Without education, where would we be? Without infrastructure, how would we get our products to the marketplace? etc...

[Romulox]

42. I don't disagree. But the fact remains... nt

[girl gone mad]

64. But the fact is not accurate.

[Romulox]

67. The public sector is funded with tax revenue. It's not controversial. nt

[girl gone mad]

80. This is not true at the federal level.

Also, a significant portion of the private sector is funded by public sector spending.

It is more accurate to think of the private and public sectors as being in partnership with one another rather than being competing forces.

[CJCRANE]

50. The banks are not self-supporting. Public money bailed them out.

What goes around comes around.

No organization is self-supporting.

Private businesses need customers. We pay their salaries either directly through government contracts and subsidies or indirectly as individual customers.

[girl gone mad]

63. Private sector would have no dollars without public sector.

I guess we could all go back to bartering, foraging and farming.

[Romulox]

66. I don't disagree (at all). The point STILL remains: the "public sector" requires tax revenue to

function--it almost never has an independent source of revenue (save in some resource extracting states...)

[girl gone mad]

75. You've set it up as if the two sectors are in competition for money.

The federal government never has to tax in order to spend (it doesn't have to borrow either). When it wants to spend it can credit accounts. It can always run a deficit in excess of tax revenue collected. In fact, if the government ran a surplus or balanced budget at all times we would likely be in a permanent depression. The federal deficit represents a private sector surplus, debt-free money available to the private sector. In times of peak productive capacity and full employment, this surplus money could lead to inflation. But in times of underutilized productive capacity and high unemployment (like right now) this private sector surplus is generally healthy and necessary.

[Romulox]

86. No, I did not. I won't argue points only *YOU* have made. nt

[dkf]

112. Or using gold backed paper.

The reason it seems that only the government can create currency is because they have made it illegal for anyone else to do so.

But anything with recognized value can work. Even casino chips.

[tralala]

72. Yup

Yup yup yup

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

103. It seems to me that the teaching profession is supporting the entire structure of civilization

What kind of 3rd world disaster would we live in without our teachers, especially those in the early years of life? Private productivity would be nil without a citizenry with a basic knowledge of reading and writing, along with problem-solving skills. It seems to me that by investing tax dollars in teachers, our entire society is getting an excellent return on our investment.

[ananda]

39. Because ...

... it gives sociopathic control freaks the opportunity
to make loads of money off the backs of underpaid
wage slaves, with these freaks having no accountability
whatsoever, no oversight, no regulation, and so on.
The taxpayers are out of that picture, and public
elected officials have no say in how they do business
either.

[randome]

47. The argument that private enterprise is less bureaucratic is absolutely ludicrous.

Any corporation I've worked for has had unending levels of paperwork and hoops to jump through to get the simplest thing done.

The larger the group of people, the more bureaucracy accumulates. It's human nature.

[ThomThom]

53. too true

add in "has to make a profit" and private sector costs more for less

[Tuesday Afternoon]

59. He is targeting the wrong "Public Sector" Overpaid Congressmen and Senators is where the fat needs

to be trimmed At the Federal and State and Local Levels. Romney is a Numbfuck.

[Hippo_Tron]

60. Both sectors do some things better than the other

The standard of living that the middle class enjoys during prosperous times (like the 50's/60's and the late 90's) isn't really possible without a robust private sector.

Part of the problem, IMO, is that voters believe that the government (and more specifically the President) have actual control over private sector job growth. The fact is that the private sector is controlled by a myriad of factors, rather than any one entity. The government's influence is marginal.

Thus, the government can't create the kind of prosperity that we'd like to have. A decade of the New Deal certainly didn't bring us the kind of prosperity we had before the collapse in 1929. World War II (an event beyond our control) ultimately did that. HOWEVER the New Deal did...

1) Alleviate much of the suffering caused by the collapse

2) Make good use of human capital at a time when the private sector was unable to

3) Fix many of the problems that led to the collapse

4) Put in place Social Security and other programs that greatly increase economic fairness and security in the country

So when you have a nation that has plenty of wealth and sluggish private sector job growth, it makes good sense to put people to work repairing infrastructure, fighting fires, teaching children, and doing other things that benefit the country. It won't lead back to the kind of prosperity that we had in the 1990's. But there's really nothing that the government (or anyone else) can do to make that happen. One day we (probably) will have that kind of prosperity again, at least for a while. In the meantime, lets make productive use of human capital and alleviate suffering caused by unemployment. It's a pretty simple concept.

[tralala]

71. If the public sector doesn't include nationalized industries

but consists of civil servants and the bureaucratic/administrative apparatus, then it's because the public sector is "sponging" off of the value produced by the private sector. That is why the private sector is considered "better" than the public sector, not only by capital but, as demonstrated in Wisconsin, by private-sector workers too.

[kentuck]

73. If "the public sector is "sponging" off of the value produced by the private sector..."

Then what is the value of an educated work force, roads and infrastructure, electricity and water, and a society with money to buy your products?? Does anyone think a private sector could thrive without a healthy "public sector"?

[girl gone mad]

79. The government pays people to provide services and/or create goods.

People accept the government's payment in exchange for their labor and/or products.

Can you tell me exactly where the "sponging" occurs in this process?

Also, at what point did the private sector produce this "value" that was sponged off?

[tralala]

81. The government pays for its services/employees out of

the tax revenues it receives, which it receives from the private sector and private citizens.

The private sector (excluding the so called finance industry of course) "creates" new "value" during the production process. What this value is, in fact, is unpaid labor extracted directly from the laborer and fixed in commodities. Upon realization of this value (in other words, sale) it takes the form of profit, interest, rent, taxes, etc. For more information see here.

(e. All this is assumes we're not talking about nationalized industries/state-owned enterprises that can create new value on their own)

[girl gone mad]

84. This is an incomplete view of the role of the government in a modern economy.

Marx was right about some things, but wrong about others.

Most importantly Marx lived, worked and wrote at all times under the assumption that commodity money exists and that it takes the form of gold, freely produced in the capitalist market, for which currencies are exchangeable at a fixed value at the central bank. Marx was a fan of this gold standard and first and foremost Marx's theory of money is a commodity theory of money

Needless to say, Marx's theory of money does not describe the world markets as they function today, nor does it describe any specific national economy.

In the U.S., we live under a sovereign fiat currency regime with a flexible rate of exchange. Our sovereign currency-issuing central government does not pay for services out of tax revenues it receives. Tax revenues serve to drain money out of the private economy and counteract inflation, providing stable demand for our fiat currency.

When our currency issuing government spends money into the economy, it can create "value" in precisely the same manner that the private sector does when the private sector creates loans, minus the interest-bearing debt feature which shifts money away from productive activity and encourages rent-seeking activity. Our monetarily sovereign government can spend at will, and under good management can and should invest in education, research, energy security, food security and infrastructure. Whereas the private sector of late prefers to lend to fuel bubbles designed around tract housing and smart phone apps.

[shcrane71]

74. If divide & conquer didn't work, politicians and corporations wouldn't use it. nt

[gulliver]

85. There's a good book called "The Gardens of Democracy"

It talks about how a good balance of government and the private sector is really the ideal system, not all government, not all private. It also talks about how important it is to tend the garden to maximize human potential. "We're all better off when we're all better off."

One of the things the book talks about is the idea of government "spending." People mistakenly think of it as money lost, as if taxes are money that is taken out of the system and sort of disappears. The authors point out that tax money is actually circulated money. It goes to the government and then back to the citizens...and then back again...

That might seem intuitively obvious, but I think the authors are right and a lot of people just think of taxes as an outflow and a burden. They aren't thinking of the goods they are getting for the taxes or the fact that people who receive, for example, Social Security buy things with it from the private sector.

I think government gives good value for the money it gets, and I like the fact that it has to account for everything it does openly. The private sector also does a great job. I like both a lot. I don't like people who try to drive a wedge between the two and declare one better than the other. That's complete nonsense.

[IndyPragmatist123]

87. Well, without a private sector, the public sector could not exist

The private sector funds the public sector through tax revenue. This is obvious.

The private sector is also much more efficient than the public sector. Money is the greatest motivator in our society, and if there is an opportunity for profit, you can bet your ass that a private company is going to do whatever they can to capture that. That could be through lowering costs of production or increasing prices. The private sector provides the things that people want. The public sector provides things people need.

A private sector job will not exist unless there are private citizens who want that service (ignoring military contractors and similar businesses that rely on government contracts to exist). The reason that Wal-Mart exists is because millions of Americans shop there. The people have the power to eliminate Wal-Mart, but there are enough people that want lower prices at the expense of fair labor and quality goods to keep Wal-Mart alive and thriving.

The private sector offers the opportunity to get rich. (There are many examples of people getting rich from the public sector, but this should not exist) Thus, people (mostly republicans) would rather have as much of commerce as possible within the private sector because that increases the possibility that they may be the lucky individual who gets rich.

I think it's fair to say that the private sector is better than the public sector because the public sector could not exist without the private sector. However, when the public sector can offer something better than the private sector, or offer something that the private sector cannot provide (or will not provide), then there is no reason to oppose the public sector.



In response to your comment: "I can think of a lot of "private sector" jobs that do not serve society". I disagree. All private sector jobs serve society in some way. They may not serve you or anyone you know individually, but if they did not provide something of value to someone, they would not exist. Large financial institutions may screw over the little guy, but they provide great opportunity for profit for wealthy investors. Thus, they serve this segment of society. Another example is a strip club. This business may not serve the vast majority of society, but for a few individuals (bachelor parties and lonely old men), they are very valuable. This is just a case of differing values and opinions. What may not serve you, may serve someone else very well. Again, this falls into the category of providing services and goods that people want versus goods and services that people need.

[girl gone mad]

104. Tax revenue doesn't fund spending at the federal level.

I'm still surprised that people get this wrong. We're not on a gold standard any more.

Financial institutions exist to make profit for themselves, first and foremost. There's a reason they call their wealthy investors "muppets".

The value provided by private sector businesses becomes questionable when it involves creating highly leveraged speculative bubbles or buying off politicians for favored regulatory advantage and access no bid-contracts, privatizations of public infrastructure for profit, etc.

You wouldn't have any dollars to pay for those lap dances if the government hadn't first spent money into the economy. Think about it.

[IndyPragmatist123]

116. I guess I must have not paid attention during my 6 years of economics studies

Because I have never once heard or read anyone attempt to claim that governments can fund themselves. Why not just print $100T and spend it on jobs projects and benefits? Since you seem to think that the private sector doesn't matter, there wouldn't possibly any consequences of this.

[slackmaster]

89. It's not better. It's much bigger and much more important to the economy in terms of job creation.

It's also the source of a large majority of revenue for government.

Without a vibrant private sector, there isn't enough money to pay for the essential services provided by the public sector.

[Aerows]

99. If you want people beholden to you

Make sure they have no benefits, no pension and no living wages. Then they are forced to slave for you until they are all used up, and tossed away.

People resent public sector workers that work long enough to earn a pension because they don't have one, and many of them are minority workers that have worked for decades to earn said pension. It is highly offensive to many people that there might be black or female workers that end up being able to support themselves out from under the thumb of the white male aristocracy that they believe they deserve in their old age.

I say this with some sarcasm laced into it, but I don't believe I am really all that far from the mark. It's why they attack teachers, nurses and anyone that manages to earn their way to having a decent income in their old age. They earned it, but old white men that didn't manage to do that resent the hell out of them.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

100. BIGGER and EASIER BRIBES for politicians

The power and wealth of big corporations is concentrated in the hands of a few executives. Politicians who seek big "campaign contributions" can negotiate huge "quid pro quo" deals involving just a few corporate fatcats.

In contrast, with the exception of prison guards, some cops, and some firefighters, public sector unions are both more transparent and fundamentally opposed to government takeover by greedy corporations.

And big corporations won't stay big unless they corrupt government and prevent long-term profits from being competed away by rising long term costs and new players in their industries. Think of the worst of the worst corporate polluters and plunderers. Big media and big telcoms need the FCC to run interference for them and let them buy out potential new competitors. Big Gas drillers need to get exemptions from EPA laws and rules so they can destroy millions of acres of groundwater with cheap "fracking", Wall Street needs the SEC, CFTC, and Consumer Finance Protection to turn a blind eye to 40x leverage that can make investments go down exponentially faster than they go up and crash the real economy.

This is what Republicans mean by "job-killing regulations"--destroyers of sweet quid-pro-quo deals between corrupt politicians and greedy anti-competitive corporations.

[KoKo]

102. Because Reagan said it...and Clinton said it...and it's what is WINNING in Political America.

It RESONATES with the PEOPLE!

What other reason could there be?

"The People" (Corporatists, MIC, GLOBAL INTERESTS, MEDIA CORPACRACY, FIRE INTERESTS...and the rest .......HAVE SPOKEN.

CITIZENS UNITED DECISION...RULES!

IT's GOOD! Both Dems & Repugs at least Agree on That One!

All is GOOD!

[TroglodyteScholar]

108. I've worked in both...

Found talented people and worthless dipshits in equal measure....

[joshcryer]

113. I don't think that it is, necessarily. But you can regulate out cronyism from the private sector.

Good luck getting rid of cronyism in the public sector.

FULL DISCLAIMER: I work in the public sector, cronyism is rampant.

DOUBLE DISCLAIMER: Deregulation has resulted in a highly cronyist private sector. I'm speaking theoretically.