Thanks for the clear explanation, Allan!
Although if it really has zero staff, I do wonder who employs the people
who "push the buttons" - authorising and approving payments etc. Do they
work for the Dept of Agriculture? Are they technically "contractors" to
the CCC?
On 2018-11-04 13:43, Allan Mustard wrote:
> The Commodity Credit Corporation is the U.S. equivalent of a British "crown
> corporation". It has no staff of its own, a board of directors that consists
> of the senior political appointees of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and
> authority to disburse funds to farmers eligible for various government
> programs. It has many statutory duties and authorities to provide credit and
> subsidies, dating back to legislation first passed in the Great Depression.
> Programs are implemented by USDA (i.e., government) employees under these
> authorities. It is about as far from a commercial enterprise as one can
> imagine--not even "pseudo-commercial"! In WTO terms, it is the U.S.
> government's "national paying agency" for agriculture and so by international
> treaty is considered a government agency, even though it is incorporated in
> Delaware as a corporation, has a board of directors, and so on. If the CCC
> had an office, it would be tagged office=government, but since CCC only
> exists on paper, we
mappers don't really have to worry about it :-) On 11/4/2018 3:52 PM, Colin
Smale wrote:
>
> The answer will depend on whether we are talking about landuse, building,
> office or amenity.
>
> Waste disposal is (in Europe) usually a statutory task, performed by a
> commercial company on behalf of some government. If it is open to the public,
> then the "amenity" provided is waste disposal / recycling. The landuse is
> probably something like "waste disposal" or "industrial", similar to how
> landfill sites might be tagged. The "office" belongs to the commercial
> company, so that is not governmental.
>
> Other areas where this (outsourcing of statutory duties) is commonplace (that
> I know of) include public transport, administration of visa applications,
> healthcare provision, assessment of benefits claims, and operation of
> highways/infrastructure.
>
> Government-owned companies like a brewery are IMHO nothing to do with the
> execution of statutory tasks and are therefore not governmental in any way,
> shape or form.
>
> In the example of the Credit Corporation, does some government organisation
> have a statutory duty to provide credit? Or does it come under something more
> general like "protecting the poor"? Would the government be "failing in its
> statutory duty" if thie company disappeared? Otherwise it sounds like an
> optional, pseudo-commercial venture which in this case happens to be
> bankrolled by the government.
>
> On 2018-11-04 11:13, Warin wrote:
>
> Where do you draw the line?
>
> If a 'government company' has 50% of its income from a government allocation
> and the rest from elsewhere (e.g. contracts with private
> companies/individuals) is it 'government' or not?
>
> On 04/11/18 20:19, Allan Mustard wrote:
>
> If it is a profitable company that adds to the government's coffers, such as
> the Budvar brewery in the Czech Republic, which is government owned, I'd say
> no. It should be tagged as a brewery. Same logic would apply to
> Rosoboronexport, which is Russia's second-largest revenue earner as an arms
> exporter. Petronas, the Malaysian government gas and oil company, should be
> tagged as a gas and oil company. Same for Pemex, Petroleo Mexicano, as well
> as the grocery stores the Bangladeshi army operates.
>
> If it is a budget-dependent company/corporation, such as the Commodity Credit
> Corporation of the U.S. government, which generates no revenue of its own and
> relies wholly on appropriations from the U.S. Congress, yes, it should be
> tagged government. As Deep Throat said, "Follow the money!"
>
> apm-wa
> On 11/4/2018 1:29 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 4. Nov 2018, at 05:54, Allan Mustard <al...@mustard.net> wrote:
>
> Paul, as Deep Throat told Bob Woodward, "Follow the money." Who pays the
> rent on the office and who pays the salary of the occupant? If the filthy
> lucre comes out of the government budget, and the office is used by someone
> drawing a government salary (as all executives, legislators, and judges do,
> or are supposed to, at least) then it is a government office.
>
> what about government owned companies? Should they get a government tag?
>
> Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
