News What is the current state of incarceration in the United States?

[baywax]

I would say that in a capitalist environment, from the moment an activity is somewhat profitable, it should a priori be left to the private sector, unless there are other reasons to put it in public hands. So indeed, most government activities will not be "making money". Because if it were, chances are it should be left to the private sector.

What is the reasoning behind that? In Canada we have scads of Govt lotteries. Many of the Casinos are Govt run. Govt Bonds in another example such as Tbills. I don't see a problem with my government investing my money in various stocks and bonds to double the surplus at the end of the year. I realize there may be perceptions of conflict of interest but, if that's a concern, why are there lobbyists and special interest groups allowed access to govt officals? I really would like to see more affirmative action from Govt. I'm mean, we pay them to make our societal infrastructure a great place to live, how they use the money to achieve that requires a huge amount of scrutiny and disclosure, this should ensure that any entrepreneurial activities are kept within the bounds of the public interest and laws.

50% of the civic police force's work load is answering challenges with the psychologically disabled. The govt has shifted their responsibility to care for them over to every city's budget. Were we able to treat criminal, anti-social and related conditions as "psychological/social disabilities" (which they are to a large degree) and apply the kinds of treatments that sustain a modification of the behaviour associated with these conditions, things might be better all around. So, in addition to funding sports programs, the govt initiated Casninos could also kick in for the proper treatment options available for the people left behind with anti-social and other psychological behavioural traits.

 

[Art]

50% of the civic police force's work load is answering challenges with the psychologically disabled. The govt has shifted their responsibility to care for them over to every city's budget. Were we able to treat criminal, anti-social and related conditions as "psychological/social disabilities" (which they are to a large degree) and apply the kinds of treatments that sustain a modification of the behaviour associated with these conditions, things might be better all around. So, in addition to funding sports programs, the govt initiated Casninos could also kick in for the proper treatment options available for the people left behind with anti-social and other psychological behavioural traits.

Thatcher did the same in the UK years back under her Orwellian named 'Care in the Community' program. Presumably her cost/benefit analysis showed it would be cheaper to handle the extra crime which would ensue than to treat the people for their mental conditions

 

[vanesch]

What is the reasoning behind that?

Well, if there's no specific reason (and betting games may be a reason! Maybe if left to the private sector, this becomes quickly too mafia-like, I don't know) to keep an activity in gov. hands, and if it is profitable, then why should it be kept out of private hands ?

But I fully agree (against "capitalist dogma") that there can be many reasons to keep a certain activity in Gov. hands. Usually, large-scale/long term investment infrastructures are better handled on a state basis than privately (think trains!). Also everything which has to do with social well-being and so on, it is probably delicate to leave it to the private sector. But the simple production of innocent mass goods and services is usually handled better by the private sector. I don't see why the government should bake cookies, even if it is profitable, for instance. So what activities must be in the hands of the gov. and what should be delegated to the private sector are more a matter of efficiency, fairness, social wellbeing, national importance, than a matter of "making money".
The state is not a business. It is what we collectively decide to do together, and what we collectively decide to pay for (taxes). If we think that we can make money in one or other way, there's no need for a collective consensus. It is sufficient to mount a business.

 

[baywax]

Thatcher did the same in the UK years back under her Orwellian named 'Care in the Community' program. Presumably her cost/benefit analysis showed it would be cheaper to handle the extra crime which would ensue than to treat the people for their mental conditions

Well, what do you expect from a battle axe? Actually, it may be a trend in Canada, but I only know it for certain provincially. For instance, the Feds send the Province money for health care. The Province shuts down the mental facilities and the patients become street people causing crime, de-valued property etc... so, the province is playing with the Fed cash in this case... and not really thinking about the consequences.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

think trains!

Is that your example of a profitable business?

 

[baywax]

Well, if there's no specific reason (and betting games may be a reason! Maybe if left to the private sector, this becomes quickly too mafia-like, I don't know) to keep an activity in gov. hands, and if it is profitable, then why should it be kept out of private hands ?

But I fully agree (against "capitalist dogma") that there can be many reasons to keep a certain activity in Gov. hands. Usually, large-scale/long term investment infrastructures are better handled on a state basis than privately (think trains!). Also everything which has to do with social well-being and so on, it is probably delicate to leave it to the private sector. But the simple production of innocent mass goods and services is usually handled better by the private sector. I don't see why the government should bake cookies, even if it is profitable, for instance. So what activities must be in the hands of the gov. and what should be delegated to the private sector are more a matter of efficiency, fairness, social wellbeing, national importance, than a matter of "making money".
The state is not a business. It is what we collectively decide to do together, and what we collectively decide to pay for (taxes). If we think that we can make money in one or other way, there's no need for a collective consensus. It is sufficient to mount a business.

Yes, its funny because you see CEOs entering politics all the time. Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin was CEO of a huge shipping line. He dropped his title as CEO but the perception is that ... one, he knows how to run a successful business and mini-economy. The negative perception is that he's benefiting from his position in Govt as the owner of one of the worlds largest shipping companies.

I agree that we formed the institution of "government" to serve the overall well being of our nation's citizens. Any activity our government initiates must be in the interest of the citizen. The complications of running a business would tend to stray from the business of running a country. When booze was regulated in several provinces the government made money and regulated the sale, the quality and the allowable strength of the booze. I think it worked pretty well. Of course the competition act has seen to it that there are independent liquor stores but they are still bound by the same import and quality regulations.

 

[vanesch]

Is that your example of a profitable business?

Trains are an example of what is better handled collectively than privately. At least, it seems so. I guess it is because there are many aspects to trains which make this the case. A good train transport system needs big, long term investments, and the choice of the investments needs to serve other purposes than purely commercial (they help the development of a region etc...). Not something a business will optimize.

In France, trains are profitable, and although the system could be improved, the TGV is quite a success. In Germany too, trains run well. I had the impression that in the UK, where it has been privatized, things don't run so well.

Now, they tried it privately too: Eurotunnel was a private business, and although it is slowly turning positive now after I don't know how many years, it has been a total disaster as a business.

 

[baywax]

Trains are an example of what is better handled collectively than privately. At least, it seems so. I guess it is because there are many aspects to trains which make this the case. A good train transport system needs big, long term investments, and the choice of the investments needs to serve other purposes than purely commercial (they help the development of a region etc...). Not something a business will optimize.

In France, trains are profitable, and although the system could be improved, the TGV is quite a success. In Germany too, trains run well. I had the impression that in the UK, where it has been privatized, things don't run so well.

Now, they tried it privately too: Eurotunnel was a private business, and although it is slowly turning positive now after I don't know how many years, it has been a total disaster as a business.

Does this apparent efficiency with govt run trains etc... translate to health care and prison/reform institutions?

 

[mheslep]

Trains are an example of what is better handled collectively than privately.

In the US trains are total counter example to that. Amtrak (govt run) comes up every few years w/ the threat of bankruptcy and runs far less efficiently than the private freight carriers. Of course .gov bails it out and the trains keep running.

At least, it seems so. I guess it is because there are many aspects to trains which make this the case. A good train transport system needs big, long term investments, and the choice of the investments needs to serve other purposes than purely commercial (they help the development of a region etc...). Not something a business will optimize.

Eh? There are of course thousands of large scale, world wide businesses that are profitable including transportation, shipping.

In Germany too, trains run well.

I wouldn't equate running 'well' with running efficiently. It may be that Germany vastly over pays for what it gets.

Edit: The UK rail system appears to be only a pseudo private system, I think more accurately its still a govt. controlled system without the funding.

Is French rail really profitable (not just flashy-fast)? I read the new fast line Paris to Strasbourg cost 5B Euro, so I am skeptical the French are in the black.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article1615599.ece

 

[baywax]

In the US trains are total counter example to that. Amtrak (govt run) comes up every few years w/ the threat of bankruptcy and runs far less efficiently than the private freight carriers. Of course .gov bails it out and the trains keep running.

Eh? There are of course thousands of large scale, world wide businesses that are profitable including transportation, shipping.

I wouldn't equate running 'well' with running efficiently. It may be that Germany vastly over pays for what it gets.

Edit: The UK rail system appears to be only a pseudo private system, I think more accurately its still a govt. controlled system without the funding.

Is French rail really profitable (not just flashy-fast)? I read the new fast line Paris to Strasbourg cost 5B Euro, so I am skeptical the French are in the black.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article1615599.ece

In Canuck land we have what are called Government Corporations. This is what governs the Gaming industry, and the Canadian National Railway is one of them. Its odd because the railway was a joint mission, back in the 1800s, between govt and private concerns. The Govt was involved because, by some magical right, it owned the entire real estate that is Canada. So they were in the position to be influence pedaling the building of the railways.

There are also Provincial Govt. Corporations running transportation projects such as building large bridges.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

The Govt was involved because, by some magical right, it owned the entire real estate that is Canada.

I think that's the default status of real estate in most countries if not all of them. Here in the U.S. when new territories were claimed it was the government's responsibility to kick off all of the Injuns and parcel it out for sale to settlers.

But that's all in the past now so we're allowed to scoff at hundred-year-old Native claims to U.S. land while fervently and vigorously supporting Israel's 2000-year-old claim to land in the Middle East.

⚛​

 

[baywax]

I think that's the default status of real estate in most countries if not all of them. Here in the U.S. when new territories were claimed it was the government's responsibility to kick off all of the Injuns and parcel it out for sale to settlers.

But that's all in the past now so we're allowed to scoff at hundred-year-old Native claims to U.S. land while fervently and vigorously supporting Israel's 2000-year-old claim to land in the Middle East.

⚛​

I never looked at it that way. However sarcastic your statement is, its a good example of the hypocrisy in politics.

Another example is the fact that before the Europeans claimed the Americas there were always wars for territory between the First Nations. In Canada's North West the Haida Nation would raid the Salish Nation (a long distance war) for the Salish women. The Haida would kill all the men they could find and abscond with the women. So, when I see land claims and claims of abuse... I ask why they're not settling past differences (thousands of years) between their own nations. And I don't see a difference (no prejudice) between all atrocities... these are all examples of man's inhumanity to man.

The only solution is the application of consistent and accurate education for everyone. And that's one proclaimation in both the American and Canadian constitutions that will be worth the paper its written on for centuries to come.

 

[russ_watters]

But that's all in the past now so we're allowed to scoff at hundred-year-old Native claims to U.S. land while fervently and vigorously supporting Israel's 2000-year-old claim to land in the Middle East.

⚛​

You're making a false dichotomy: We don't care about Israel's 2000 year old claim to the land, we care about Israel's current claim to the land.

 

[russ_watters]

Another example is the fact that before the Europeans claimed the Americas there were always wars for territory between the First Nations. In Canada's North West the Haida Nation would raid the Salish Nation (a long distance war) for the Salish women. The Haida would kill all the men they could find and abscond with the women. So, when I see land claims and claims of abuse... I ask why they're not settling past differences (thousands of years) between their own nations. And I don't see a difference (no prejudice) between all atrocities... these are all examples of man's inhumanity to man.

I agree. And the solution, as I see it, is the one the world community has already decided-on: starting around the turn of the 20th century, it became no longer acceptable to start wars for conquest. Ever since, the major nations have banded together to stop such wars (not every time and not all for altuism, but still...).

The Middle East and Africa were still problematic for a while, since where they weren't colonized, they were still largely dominated by tribalism.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

You're making a false dichotomy: We don't care about Israel's 2000 year old claim to the land, we care about Israel's current claim to the land.

Uh, okay... so if we pair the initial Jewish resettlement of Palestine of the late 1800's / 1910's and 1920's - the time during which the Middle East was a bunch of European colonies - with Native American land claims of the same age, does that begin to look a little bit like a double standard? Are you seriously trying to say that there isn't any hypocrisy in the way the U.S. government has treated Native American ownership of land?

All I was pointing out is that the default position is that the government owns any land that is not privately owned within a country's territories.

⚛​

 

[baywax]

I agree. And the solution, as I see it, is the one the world community has already decided-on: starting around the turn of the 20th century, it became no longer acceptable to start wars for conquest. Ever since, the major nations have banded together to stop such wars (not every time and not all for altuism, but still...).

The Middle East and Africa were still problematic for a while, since where they weren't colonized, they were still largely dominated by tribalism.

Yes, its not so much territorial wars anymore... its resource wars. I am discouraged by Canadian involvement in Afghanistan. Under the guise of a humanitarian effort, we are simply guarding the development of an oil pipeline from Kazakhstan to a Pakistan port. Canadians are well known for their ability to build pipelines in adverse conditions, though, road side bombs and opium crazed gunfighters were never part of the mix. There are always, however, a lot of tense negotiations with the Inuit and other First Nations. Though no First Nation people are stupid enough to blow themselves up for a principal. (Unless they're drugged and brainwashed into doing so)

 

[mgb_phys]

On a similair note they aren't the 'first nation people' they are the penultimate nation people. If you asusme that all N. and S. America were originally polulated by migration from asia over the land bridge then the 'first' nation people are now in Punta Arenas having been pushed out by later waves of migrants.
The 'first nation' people of Canada were simply the last and/or most effective group at pushing out those that had already arrived - at least until Europeans showed up.

 

[baywax]

On a similair note they aren't the 'first nation people' they are the penultimate nation people. If you asusme that all N. and S. America were originally polulated by migration from asia over the land bridge then the 'first' nation people are now in Punta Arenas having been pushed out by later waves of migrants.
The 'first nation' people of Canada were simply the last and/or most effective group at pushing out those that had already arrived - at least until Europeans showed up.

Yes, you're correct. And the funny thing about it is the Punta Arenas are descended from Europeans (Clovis period) who floated over on ice sheets 17,000 years ago. But, since today we are so wonderfully in tune with our altruistic genes, the only thing that matters is cooperation between all nations and all those environs these nations can be found to be inhabiting.

 

[mgb_phys]

I upset some friends in BC by suggesting that a program to help unemployed 'first nation' kids by teaching them their native language so they would be in tune with their roots might do better teaching them Java so they could get a job.

Nobody ever suggests the solution to youth unemployment in Newcastle or Michigan is to teach white kids anglo-saxon so they can read Beowulf.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

On a similair note they aren't the 'first nation people' they are the penultimate nation people. If you asusme that all N. and S. America were originally polulated by migration from asia over the land bridge then the 'first' nation people are now in Punta Arenas having been pushed out by later waves of migrants.
The 'first nation' people of Canada were simply the last and/or most effective group at pushing out those that had already arrived - at least until Europeans showed up.

Yeah, good point mgb_phys. Lots of people also don't know that the Sioux, for example, did not live in the Great Plains until well after Europeans started colonizing North America. They previously lived in the Great Lakes area and moved Westward due to pressure from expanding European colonies and due to the fact they could really kick butt with the guns and horses they'd gotten from Europeans.

It basically just depends on who has political power when the music stops. Look at China in Tibet, for example.

⚛​

 

[vanesch]

In the US trains are total counter example to that. Amtrak (govt run) comes up every few years w/ the threat of bankruptcy and runs far less efficiently than the private freight carriers. Of course .gov bails it out and the trains keep running.

Maybe there's a social reason to keep them running ? Like, service to some remote regions which would decline economically otherwise. I don't know.

Eh? There are of course thousands of large scale, world wide businesses that are profitable including transportation, shipping.

Most of these *grew* from smaller-scale projects. But something that needs a large, long-term investment on eventually risky technology over 10 or more years, without a big expected return (although it will turn out in the end to be profitable) will probably rarely be done by private investors ; nevertheless it can be a project with high social added value ; with high collective added value, such as the economical development of a country or whatever.

Is French rail really profitable (not just flashy-fast)? I read the new fast line Paris to Strasbourg cost 5B Euro, so I am skeptical the French are in the black.

http://www.sncf-participations.com/images/rapportfinancier.pdf

In 2006, 200 M Euro net gain was made by SNCF, which is in progression.

Now, of course, that's probably a low investment rentability, but that doesn't matter: it is self-supporting and even makes some money.

 

[russ_watters]

Uh, okay... so if we pair the initial Jewish resettlement of Palestine of the late 1800's / 1910's and 1920's - the time during which the Middle East was a bunch of European colonies - with Native American land claims of the same age, does that begin to look a little bit like a double standard? Are you seriously trying to say that there isn't any hypocrisy in the way the U.S. government has treated Native American ownership of land?

Yes, the US mistreated the native Americans. But that doesn't have anything at all to do with our position on Israel. There is no double standard.

 

[russ_watters]

I upset some friends in BC by suggesting that a program to help unemployed 'first nation' kids by teaching them their native language so they would be in tune with their roots might do better teaching them Java so they could get a job.

Nobody ever suggests the solution to youth unemployment in Newcastle or Michigan is to teach white kids anglo-saxon so they can read Beowulf.

There is a similar oddity in American culture regarding African culture.

Sorta related, my grandfather spoke Pennsylvania Deutch at home and didn't learn English until he went to school, which in the time before English as a Second Langauge classes put him at a severe disadvantage and is largely what prevented him from going beyond an 8th grade education. He's always been bitter about that. Fast forward to today and connect it: why would I want to learn Pennsylvania Deutch in school?

 

[Poop-Loops]

Want to and have to are two different things. You might just be interested in the language. But to assume that there is some mystical benefit from learning it is obviously ludicrous.

 

[baywax]

I upset some friends in BC by suggesting that a program to help unemployed 'first nation' kids by teaching them their native language so they would be in tune with their roots might do better teaching them Java so they could get a job.

Nobody ever suggests the solution to youth unemployment in Newcastle or Michigan is to teach white kids anglo-saxon so they can read Beowulf.

My career with the BC Provincial Archaeologist's office culminated in my advocation of the First Nation's involvement in the BC Museums Association. Now a good 70 percent of employees in BC Museums are native. I also advocated that the nations take over the Archaeological duties of the BC Archaeologist (since they know where most of the ancient sites are) and today that office is gone. In this way, I've pissed off a number of white BC archaeologists who are now only sporatically employed as Police support in large murder cases (pig farm atrocity)

I have also directly lobbied to have the Indian Affairs cash payments to First Nations bands used to build vocational training centres to bolster the self-esteem and employment opportunities for my friends, the youth of the First Nations. This also pissed off the Chiefs who normally distribute these funds themselves.

As a White Anglo-Saxon mother's son my historical roots are continually regurgitated in Elementary and Secondary school. English is a pre-requisite for post secondary training. I don't see why the native tongues of NA should be treated any differently. Those people who want to learn them should have that opportunity. I took German, French and Spanish during high school and college. Today the native tongues and cultural backgrounds are also taught in BC Colleges. But, football is suffering dearly!

edit: the main goal of my involvement with the First Nations was to help the majority of whites see their worth as humans and to help bring them back into being some of the people who make up the "land of the free" and the brave, eh?.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

My career with the BC Provincial Archaeologist's office culminated in my advocation of the First Nation's involvement in the BC Museums Association. Now a good 70 percent of employees in BC Museums are native. I also advocated that the nations take over the Archaeological duties of the BC Archaeologist (since they know where most of the ancient sites are) and today that office is gone…

…As a White Anglo-Saxon mother's son my historical roots are continually regurgitated in Elementary and Secondary school. English is a pre-requisite for post secondary training. I don't see why the native tongues of NA should be treated any differently. Those people who want to learn them should have that opportunity. I took German, French and Spanish during high school and college. Today the native tongues and cultural backgrounds are also taught in BC Colleges. But, football is suffering dearly!

Now there's one accomplishment you've mentioned that I can applaud, baywax!

Has anyone else been to the University of BC's http://www.moa.ubc.ca/" in Vancouver? Man that place is incredible for a relatively small museum. They've actually got it rigged up so that nearly the entirety of the archives are on display. I ran into it completely by accident while wandering around on a business trip.

One thing I have to say about you Canucks is that you must be the absolute world experts on building absolutely stunning museums and making them inexpensive and accessible to the public. I wish we were half as good at that down here in the States. Seriously, it's not hard to be literally wandering about in the wilderness in Canada and run smack into a mind-blowing museum that costs two or three CDN$ to get in to.

(I have to also point out that it's even more impressive that Canada does this world-class stuff out of a national population slightly larger than that of Greater Mexico City.)

Now I'm so worked up I have to mention some more I've been to: the http://www.vanmuseum.bc.ca/exhib_ongoing.htm" in Toronto.

Over on my side of the continent, in Montréal there's the http://www.pacmuseum.qc.ca/pages/Expositions/temporaires/a_venir.aspx?lang=EN-CA" on the Gaspé Peninsula in upper Province de Quebec.

About seven years ago I found a tourist pamphlet called "Micromuseums of Quebec" which led me around to all of these little free craft museums - blacksmithing, textile weaving, pottery throwing, glassblowing, etc. but I haven't been able to track that down on the web.

⚛​

 

[mheslep]

...One thing I have to say about you Canucks is that you must be the absolute world experts on building absolutely stunning museums and making them inexpensive and accessible to the public. I wish we were half as good at that down here in the States...

Surely the http://www.si.edu/visit/" is one of the world's great archaeological museums. Its free for all. Try it sometime.

 

[mgb_phys]

Archaeological duties of the BC Archaeologist (since they know where most of the ancient sites are)

That slightly depends on what you are looking for and how old they are - they aren't going to know the location of any pre-clovis remains! There is also something of a selection effect, Isreali archeology became notorius for bulldozing through later christian and muslim sites to uncover the historically important remains of one particular period.

One thing I have to say about you Canucks is that you must be the absolute world experts on building absolutely stunning museums and making them inexpensive and accessible to the public.

UBC's anthropology museum is impressive - if you like museums you should visit London!

 

[mheslep]

Maybe there's a social reason to keep them running ? Like, service to some remote regions which would decline economically otherwise. I don't know.

There may be numerous reasons and not necessarily for the public good. However, the issue at hand is the efficiency / profitability of state owned enterprises vs privately owned. For US train carriers the history of the .gov Amtrak is poor and would not survive on its own w/ out subsidies. W/ regards to other reasons, like the service to remote areas - as a sometime user I've not seen on the schedule where Amtrak gets any particular recognition in that regard. Also, there are numerous examples of how people in remote areas are well served by other private sectors - food in particular - without help from .gov.

Most of these *grew* from smaller-scale projects.

Many of them did not, but even for those that did how is that relevant? The point is that the private sector finances multi billion $ large scale projects and a regular basis.

But something that needs a large, long-term investment on eventually risky technology over 10 or more years, without a big expected return (although it will turn out in the end to be profitable) will probably rarely be done by private investors ; nevertheless it can be a project with high social added value ; with high collective added value, such as the economical development of a country or whatever.

Any point there is fairly well caveatted away down to the nub, but I'll respond with this: the efficiency and innovation of an enterprise and social goals may both be desirable but they are none the less two entirely things. It may very well be that a govt. has certain worthy social goals but goal ownership does not any way translate into any special ability of a govt. to run railroads, airlines, or health care. The govt can pay for these goals to be executed.

As for industry not being up to large scale and long term investments:

Transportation:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/b777.htm"
http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch3en/conc3en/usrail18402003.html" and only a small fraction of that financed by the US govt. Even the for the original US transcontinental RR, in large part financed by .gov, construction and operation was all private.

Oil&Gas: http://web.archive.org/web/20061024163318/http://www.chevron.com/news/archive/texaco_press/2000/pr5_4d.asp" , world's tallest structure, $500M (just for the platform, exploration costs are continual)

Pharmaceuticals:
Pfizer R&D 2004 budget $7.9B
"http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2001/11/05/011105ta_talk_the_financial_page" " to develop/test one new drug.
Estimates to develop/test a drug: http://opinionjournal.com/columnists/rbartley/?id=11000202"

 

[mgb_phys]

Boeing investment in one airplane design, the777: $10B

For which it received $3.2B in direct state aid, $4.2B of infrastructure improvements to the port and roads leading to it ( 50% of the 787 is built abroad)
It also avoids state sales tax and just got a deal limiting compensation for health effects to 2 years (it's a little worried about the glue in the carbon fibre 787)

 

[mheslep]

For which it received $3.2B in direct state aid, $4.2B of infrastructure improvements to the port and roads leading to it ( 50% of the 787 is built abroad)

That Washington state $3.2B tax break was of course for the entire $58B company and was tethered to the next gen. plane, not the 777. What port? Port of Seattle? Implying the port and roads were dedicated only to Boeing?

It also avoids state sales tax ...

Anyway you could also view all the Military contracts the Boeing receives as govt. support, I know Airbus often blows that horn when Boeing gripes about govt. support of Airbus. But all of this is off point. I don't cite Boeing as any kind of virgin private enterprise, merely an example of the fact the private companies can and do make large scale and long term investments in large projects. We don't need US Airplanes, Inc to make that happen.

 

[baywax]

Now there's one accomplishment you've mentioned that I can applaud, baywax!

Thank you but I never finished French. German and Spanish are closer to English so they're pretty easy to get through.

My accomplishments in archaeology were simply to go about the excavations properly with the care I was taught to take with them. It is the people who took these explorations as a signal that the "Indians" were actually a culture and a people in their own right. And the Nations themselves are to be credited with rising above the degradation of the church and governments. If my interest in the 26,000 year old histories of the Northwest natives helped to pave the way for their return to the home of the free then that was simply my influence rather than my focused intent.

Actually the Nations have oral histories that reach back as far as the 24,000 year old remains found in a cave in the Yukon.

Bluefish Caves: Dated at 24,000 years old, traces of human presence in the Caves are the oldest currently known in the New World. The caves have also yielded significant deposits spanning the late Ice Age period, between 24,000 and 11,000 years ago. Don’t miss the Bluefish Cave Diorama in the exhibit hall.

http://www.beringia.com/01/01maina.html

These traditions are rich with information about exactly where events took place, summer fishing villages, winter communities and so on. I know how long surface surveys can take and this tedium can be avoided with the help of the storytellers from a respective Nation. Of course, random finds are often the most productive but, again, any oral traditions about the find really help.

 

[vanesch]

I don't cite Boeing as any kind of virgin private enterprise, merely an example of the fact the private companies can and do make large scale and long term investments in large projects. We don't need US Airplanes, Inc to make that happen.

To give you an idea, the French TGV project started out in 1966, with the creation of a research group to explore the possibilities of high-speed trains. In 1974, the decision was taken (after a lot of prototyping) to construct the first TGV line, between Paris and Lyon (about 420 km). The first train open to the public ran in 1981.

I really don't think such a feat could ever have been the work of a private company, founded for that purpose in 1966, and having to wait for 15 years before selling its first ticket, without any state commitment.

Because not only the train had to be developed and build, also the long track had to be build over more than 400 kilometers, meaning having to buy private ground property and so on, building special bridges and tunnels etc...

 

[baywax]

To give you an idea, the French TGV project started out in 1966, with the creation of a research group to explore the possibilities of high-speed trains. In 1974, the decision was taken (after a lot of prototyping) to construct the first TGV line, between Paris and Lyon (about 420 km). The first train open to the public ran in 1981.

I really don't think such a feat could ever have been the work of a private company, founded for that purpose in 1966, and having to wait for 15 years before selling its first ticket, without any state commitment.

Because not only the train had to be developed and build, also the long track had to be build over more than 400 kilometers, meaning having to buy private ground property and so on, building special bridges and tunnels etc...

This is similar to the BC Gas scenario... a provincial company. They put in the pipelines and distribution to town centres etc... then a Texas company bought it lock stock and barrel. Now we are in the hands of Texas... with the exception of the BC regulator's office.

BC Tel is another example where billions of miles of land line were laid with taxpayers money then (many years later) the whole kit and kaboodle was sold to Telus, a large Canadian corporation with concerns throughout the country.

 

[mheslep]

To give you an idea, the French TGV project started out in 1966, with the creation of a research group to explore the possibilities of high-speed trains. In 1974, the decision was taken (after a lot of prototyping) to construct the first TGV line, between Paris and Lyon (about 420 km). The first train open to the public ran in 1981.

I really don't think such a feat could ever have been the work of a private company, founded for that purpose in 1966, and having to wait for 15 years before selling its first ticket, without any state commitment.

I'm struck by the assumption that 15 yrs is something like the canonical time required to build a new high speed train, as if it were a physical half life. It may be that the train could have been privately built in much less time for much less money. In any case 15 years as posted above is not unheard of for a new pharmaceutical development, safety and efficacy tests. Finally, I see no problem with a commitment for state financing. The state can pay, I argue that it should not try to produce.

 

[vanesch]

I'm struck by the assumption that 15 yrs is something like the canonical time required to build a new high speed train, as if it were a physical half life. It may be that the train could have been privately built in much less time for much less money.

Sure. The first proposals of high-speed trains were actually with turbo-reactors (like an airplane). Then, with the oil-crisis in 1973, the research switched to electrically driven systems. Once you know the solution, it seems of course simpler to devellop directly that solution.

In any case 15 years as posted above is not unheard of for a new pharmaceutical development, safety and efficacy tests.

This is correct. But then, I consider the medical world as special because somehow there's a kind of guarantee of income (thanks to insurances and all that, you know that if your molecule has a unique potential, it will be bought, whatever happens).

You never know if your high-speed train, in competition with cars, airplanes, etc... and with all the difficulties concerning real estate, is ever going to be making money. In fact, as an investor, it would have been totally crazy to put money in high speed trains in the 60-ies !

Finally, I see no problem with a commitment for state financing. The state can pay, I argue that it should not try to produce.

There is very little difference between a state-owned company and a private company that runs on state money, no ?

 

[mheslep]

This is correct. But then, I consider the medical world as special because somehow there's a kind of guarantee of income (thanks to insurances and all that, you know that if your molecule has a unique potential, it will be bought, whatever happens).

Until Drug Co gains FDA approval in the US it can't collect a dime. About http://origin.www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v7/n3/full/nrd2531.html" of new drugs reaching FDA phase III trials fail, after risking the substantial investment to get that far.

Overall, for each FDA approval, there was, on average, one Phase III failure, and 95% of these failures were products originating from biotech companies (Table 2).

Now for any capable business this doesn't mean necessarily that the investment is a loss; they can leverage it into another try, etc. Still its clear there's a need to make substantial profits off the drugs that do pass.

There is very little difference between a state-owned company and a private company that runs on state money, no ?

The private firm answers only to its stock holders for being profitable and, if there's a market in place, therefore efficient. The state owned version employs 'voters' so its 'owners' also have the incentive to plus up the payroll. SNCP has >200,000 employees I saw somewhere. My reading on the subject among economists shows the market requirement as the only remaining debatable reason for state owned enterprises: that if the alternative private enterprise could only exist as a monopoly with no competition then there is no market and the government should run the show. This may be the case w/ SNCP; France is large but perhaps not large enough to shoulder several train co's.

 

[vanesch]

The private firm answers only to its stock holders for being profitable and, if there's a market in place, therefore efficient. The state owned version employs 'voters' so its 'owners' also have the incentive to plus up the payroll. SNCP has >200,000 employees I saw somewhere. My reading on the subject among economists shows the market requirement as the only remaining debatable reason for state owned enterprises: that if the alternative private enterprise could only exist as a monopoly with no competition then there is no market and the government should run the show.

My point was only that if the expected return on investment is too far in the future, and when the development only makes sense when used on a large scale/territory, with an unsure or moderate expected business return (although the social collateral return can be high), then this is probably something that should be state-run - which doesn't exclude to subcontract a lot of it to private businesses, as was also the case for the French TGV for instance, which has mainly been developed by Alstom.

BTW, this year, the SNCF made 1 billion Euro of gains. But 6 years ago, they were still in the red. So it really took them a long, long time to recover from the investment. I don't think any private initiative would have convinced an investor to pour in money for such a long time. The urge would have been to make the company profitable on a shorter time scale, and drop expensive an long devellopments in favor of, say, improved service in normal trains, more attention to customers, publicity, marketing strategies etc... That would not have been a bad thing - it surely would have incrementally improved trains. But one would not have had a train that can compete with an airplane over distances shorter than 1000 km.Pharmaceuticals are an exception, because it is part of an ongoing process (a company that doesn't do it, will be out of business in 10-15 years), and because of the expected return is high. Also, it doesn't need a large scale effort, just a long research effort.

 

[mheslep]

My point was only that if the expected return on investment is too far in the future, and when the development only makes sense when used on a large scale/territory, with an unsure or moderate expected business return (although the social collateral return can be high), then this is probably something that should be state-run

Yes I understand your point. I've shown several counter examples (pharmaceuticals are not just an exception) to show where large scale industry is perfectly capable of engaging in long term projects though these have apparently have failed to shake the 'govt has to do it' view point.

- which doesn't exclude to subcontract a lot of it to private businesses, as was also the case for the French TGV for instance, which has mainly been developed by Alstom.

Yes I'm seeing that in the lit, and the tracks are privately maintained (owned?) by some firm (RR something?). I find this is commonly the case in connection to the French, that when there's a reference to a French state run system, e.g. health care, and one looks closely at the 'state system' its in fact supplemented by a large mass of very capable private enterprise that makes the entire show look good.

BTW, this year, the SNCF made 1 billion Euro of gains. But 6 years ago, they were still in the red.

I thought the earlier post said $200M euro? Anyway, you have me here as I can't translate the French SNCF balance sheet, and the information seems to be otherwise close hold on the net. Got one in Spanish?

So it really took them a long, long time to recover from the investment. I don't think any private initiative would have convinced an investor to pour in money for such a long time. The urge would have been to make the company profitable on a shorter time scale, and drop expensive an long developments in favor of, say, improved service in normal trains, more attention to customers, publicity, marketing strategies etc... That would not have been a bad thing - it surely would have incrementally improved trains. But one would not have had a train that can compete with an airplane over distances shorter than 1000 km.

Some common ground here. I have no problem per se with .gov making a major investment in a technology area. Depending on area I may or may not think its a good idea. US subsidies of corn ethanol, for instance, I've always thought were a bad idea but, ok, at least the govt. was not running the distilleries and planting corn. I'm am to opposed the govt. actually running anything that's doable by industry (perhaps w/ govt funding), as this is central planning. Edit: If it was ok to sub contract out much of the TGV construction, why do the 200K SNCF employees, ticket takers and conductors, all have to be on the govt. payroll? They now all owe their jobs to the French government.

It was central planning, not necessarily govt largess, that was the hall mark of the broken Soviet system you mentioned earlier, and it is thus central planning that mainly differentiates the old Soviet system from the modern welfare EU and US welfare states. It is central planning that is Hayek's Road to Serfdom.

 

[vanesch]

Yes I understand your point. I've shown several counter examples (pharmaceuticals are not just an exception) to show where large scale industry is perfectly capable of engaging in long term projects though these have apparently have failed to shake the 'govt has to do it' view point.

I would say, IF there is private initiative, why not ? But it can happen that something that is considered an interesting development (for social, technological, strategic, whatever reasons) is sometimes NOT taken up by private companies and private investment only. THEN it can be a good idea to do it statewise - although I agree with you, you're pretty sure to pay the thing with a higher bill than if it were done for profit only.

I thought the earlier post said $200M euro? Anyway, you have me here as I can't translate the French SNCF balance sheet, and the information seems to be otherwise close hold on the net. Got one in Spanish?

200 M euro in 2006. This year, 1000 M Euro. And 7 years ago, they were still in the red (since many years, mainly because of the large TGV investments - and probably also due to some state bureaucracy).

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I have some good news. The bad economy is driving states to look for ways to reduce spending.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23939378"