On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 01:46:19PM -0800, SJS wrote: > begin quoting John Oliver as of Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 01:37:33PM -0800: > > On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 12:00:35AM -0800, David Brown wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 11:04:27PM -0800, SJS wrote: > > > > > > >Well, if they prepared the food, they'd be a cafeteria. And I've > > > >paid the flat-rate for minimally-metered access to a cafeteria. > > > >It worked pretty well. If the cafeteria at work offered a flat-rate > > > >plan, I might well take advantage of it. > > > > > > A certain famous search engine company is kind of known for having a > > > free-to-employees cafeteria that serves fairly good food. I know that if > > > I > > > worked at a place like that it would be very hard to not become quite > > > large. > > > > But that flat-rate cafetria almost certainly is not self-sufficient. > > It's almost certainly subsidized by the company that houses it. > > It's free-to-employees. Duh.
Right. But it isn't "free"... there's a cost associated with running a cafeteria. The amount paid for the food almost certainly does not equal that figure. The remainder is paid by the company. Perhaps an argument could be made that the amount of that subsidy would be paid to employees in their checks if there was no cafeteria. Or we could say that the company is providing that amount out of profits,a nd the shareholders are willing to see a slightly lower return in order to provide that benefit. Either way, the cost *is* being paid. > > We pay the same amount > > for our meals (or, actually, more), we just pay part directly and the > > rest indirectly via taxes. The "more" is because of the waste caused by > > entropy in the system... > > ...offset by the economies of scale... More so than in a purely private, profit-based system? Possibly. But how much of that economy of scale gets chewed up in the inherent inefficiency of a government procurement department? In a private, profit-driven enterprise, those costs will be held down because they come right out of the net. Government does not turn a profit. The buyers have no incentive to keep costs down. And bureaucrats have a huge vested interest in seeing their operations grow and grow and grow. A 'spending cut" in government is not them spending less money... it's them growing less than they were projected to grow. > > the taxes are collected by people who are paid, > > and that money is handled and disbursed by more people. All of those > > people have supervisors, and they all need shiny office buildings to > > work in, which needs electricity and water and maintenance and toilet > > paper and more cafeterias. We pay for all of that on top of the amount > > we'd pay up front. > > Um, we have all that already. Your money is taken at the register, who > has a supervisor, who has a manager, etc., up the corporate ladder, > where the buildings are REALLY shiny, that have maintenance and toilet > paper and more cafeterias. See above. > It's a wash. I say it isn't. Private enterprise has a vested interest in remaining as efficient as possible. Government bureaucrats have a vested interest in being as inefficient as possible. They do not need to "show results". They get paid the same either way. And they want their opoeration to grow, and employ more bureaucrats, so they'll have a higher status (and salary). > > I'd rather pay $10 for my meal than $2 now and another $11 in taxes. > > How about $10 for your meal or $2 now and $6 in taxes? Because that simply is not possible. In a competitive environement, $10 is the cost of a comparable meal... if you charge more, nobody patronizes you. If you charge less, they swarm to you and your losses mount until you go out of business. Even if we assume that government will be as efficient as private enterprise, at best the total cost is still $10, and they need to wind up with that $10 after the ancillary costs of collecting taxes are taken into account. There is simply no way that government can provide a product or service at a lower true cost than private enterprise. It is not possible. Sure, they can sell $100 pills for $1 a piece, but the other $99 must be paid for somehow. This is the type of thinking that has allowed our government to become so large, unwieldy, unresponsive, and distant from the needs of regular people... the idea that taxes are inevitable, and they must always go up, and so what the heck, we might as well get something for them, right? This system is unsustainable. It will collapse. We will reach a critical point where government absorbs so much of our GNP that the system will just fall apart. Take a look at California... due to tax shortfalls, we have a $14 billion deficit. How to make that up? Sure, the Governor wants to tell all state departments to cut spending by 10%, but that will *never* happen. That's walking in powerful bureaucrats' rice bowls. Cut spending on education? We can't do that... make someone else pay! Cut law enforcement? No way! Cut welfare? That would be heartless, and they vote! Deport illegal aliens? That's racist, and there's a powerful Latino poltical group that will ensure that never happens. So... cut what? Maybe a couple of inconsequentials, like parks? And where does the rest come from? More debt. Why not? When that debt needs to be repaid, the current crop will be safely retired or dead, and the new crop will be shrugging their shoulders and saying, "Wasn't us, not our fault. But we have this huge new problem to deal with today..." Government is the problem, not the solution. -- *********************************************************************** * John Oliver http://www.john-oliver.net/ * * * *********************************************************************** -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
