Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
![]()
Some ridiculous restrictions will be placed on the companies to make the as wasteful as possible so as to justify defunding them and handing their job over to private companies.
Just like the post office.
Also just having one design bureau for each necessary system reduces the speed at which military technology advances because it removes the competition.
"War without fire is like sausages without mustard." - Jean Juvénal des UrsinsI'm going to say how things are here.
First: the politicians in charge nominate people to take the administrative seats based on loyalty instead of capability and create a network of influence where everyone in the top is tied to each other to ensure no one falls of the line and opens their mouth without having any charge falling over themselves.
Second: they start making projects or continuing the existing ones and even expanding them, this would allow them to set the prices and costs of their products to whatever they like. Said projects don't necessarily have to turn into profit or can be dragged down past the point of viability.
Third: Since they are the ones setting up the prices and face zero competition, there is nothing stopping them from declaring a unit to cost 10x its market price while making it at 4x the market price due to added inefficiency and writing off the components as being more expensive than they actually are while embezzling the difference between the market price and the declared price.
Fourth: Whenever they get a procurement from the government they'd throw the lowest bid but explicitly knowing they wouldn't be able to keep it, so in less than a year their expenses would surpass the budget since the government can't just shut down and pass the project to someone else because it is all from the government anyway, they decide to just keep sending the cash it, resulting in a product that costs more to manufacture than its price.
Fifth: After years of mismanagement due to incompetence, over billing their projects, chunking out poor performance products no one wants to buy and even when it sells it is at economic loss, with thousands of employees they cannot fire because they are all state employees but having more people than actually needed, said company is costing millions if not billions from the public safes from debt, money washed away in corruption and paying overpriced wages and no profit from their products and no sales.
Sixth: Since the screw up is too big to be ignored the involved managers and politicians use every legal mean they have to dodge any accountability, being helped by long strings of bribes or blackmailing and due to them being within the political scene they can use all the safeguards available to them to clear themselves.
In the end you get a crappy and expensive product, a financial blackhole where money gets in to never be seen again and all that being financed with tax payer money.
Case in Point: The Brazilian companies Embraer
and Vale
do Rio Doce (now simply Vale), before their privatization they used to cost millions for the public, were very under performing companies that enjoyed government enforced monopolies.
After their privatization they are now multinationals with Embraer being the third largest aerospace manufacturer in the world in partnership with Bombardier and Vale is the third largest mining company with assets in 16 countries. Now they are major employers, with a work force several times higher than before because they need the workers since they are expanding their services instead of using it as a job reservation and propaganda tool for the government.
Now one of our major state companies the Petrobras is going through an investigation that that revealed a corruption scheme so big it has been washing way billions per year in a scheme that has been going on over a decade. Privatizing it would allow it to contribute a lot more to the union than it is now with them building refineries in the middle of nowhere so they can collect the over billing money or divert money from other operations.
Yeah you think it is bad with profit seeking CE Os? Just wait until you get self serving politicians in charge.
I've lived and still living through the legacies of state run companies causing a lot more problems than they are worth while the ones that were privatized made things better simply by not wasting money in shit and doing their works properly.
Not even the Scandinavian countries have state run industries, instead of taking over they have a hefty taxation and oversight for irregularities.
edited 26th Aug '15 8:14:19 PM by AngelusNox
Inter arma enim silent legesThe question you must ask is whether or not it was necessary for them to be state-owned at one point, since otherwise you would have fewer Brazilian companies and the balance would be foreign-owned.
Although that's not the argument for nationalizing US defense (indeed, it's the main argument against; the industry needs less coddling, not more).
Most of them were from the 30's and 40's when having state owned companies was though as being a good idea, the rest came in the form of sheer protectionism like the telecom companies we used to have (good riddance).
Turning private companies into state owned is hardly the answer to most problems, if more than anything else it is the epitome of coddling since it is usually followed by a government enforced monopoly set in place to protect their new toy.
What is needed is a less shitty senate that doesn't bend over like dirty little whores after some lobby cash, some guts from the executive and legislative to actually follow with the threats to shut down over expenditure and regulatory arm strong enough to oversee if things are getting out of hand.
FDA seems to be the only being good at it, since all the other drug regulation agencies do look after it before legalizing a new compound or medical practice.
edited 26th Aug '15 8:42:10 PM by AngelusNox
Inter arma enim silent legesLast time I read up on the Nordic model, I had the impression that their governments were ran like businesses.
Even their taxation is very sleek. And they won't bail out their big businesses.
Reminds me of Singapore, including the nanny state aspects. At least one of the Scandinavian countries tried to do a fat tax.
Plants are aliens, and fungi are nanomachines.20% to 25% corporation tax and 30% to 40% on individual tax with the Scandinavian a Nordics having a very generous social security net, very low corruption index and highly competitive service and tech sectors.
IIRC one of the reasons the a CEO from a Norwegian engine and metalworks company said they were highly competitive with top of the line products is due to their heavy taxation they get their profit margins by making the best and constantly improving to keep their market share and thus secure their profits.
No need for government involvement besides the taxation, specially when they are well aware that if they tank and crash there will be no big government stepping in to save their asses like the US loves doing with General Motors.
edited 26th Aug '15 9:17:56 PM by AngelusNox
Inter arma enim silent legesI just said that I had the impression that the Nordics ran their governments like businesses.
That's different from saying that I think governments should be ran like businesses.
They also have very transparent taxation. And I have a strong feeling that they're like Germany when it comes to animal welfare laws.
Plants are aliens, and fungi are nanomachines.Can anyone give an example of a country with a nationalized defense industry. Also, it's not just Brazil that has had a bad experience with nationalized companies. Venezuela come s to mind, as does Puerto Rico, and a bunch of others I could list if I had the time.
Donald Trump trounces the rest of GOP field in new poll
And my man Biden scores the best in a matchup with the GOP Yipeee
Is America an Empire
The use of the term “empire” has been getting out of hand since it became a dirty word in the late 19th century. Yet this concept remains highly relevant in understanding and debating the history of the United States and the rest of the world.
edited 27th Aug '15 4:48:01 AM by JackOLantern1337
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.
Most of South America arms industries and virtually all of China's weapons manufacturers are under government control to some extent.
@FF Shinra it isn't just Brazil with bad examples, the whole South American continent is filled with horror stories over state run companies and corruption, the same goes for the ones in Asia, Africa and specially the Soviet Union where the procurement for new weapons and manufacturing were heavily tied to personal relationships with the higher up awarding contracts to friends, family members or whoever pandered them the most.
There aren't many examples of successful state run companies being a beacon of development, quality products and bringing a net profit for their countries.
edited 27th Aug '15 9:02:51 AM by AngelusNox
Inter arma enim silent legesIndeed, quite a few industries and/or companies were nationalised because they were going out of business or were not viable but Government deemed them vital. And actually, the reverse has happened too, where Governments have forced firms to close or merge together.
Keep Rolling On![]()
We have crown corporations because the government deems some of the resources vital despite the companies going bankrupt, and most of our crown corporations have been privatized over the past 30 years. CBC would have died ages ago if it was a private company. Like Greenmantle is saying.
edited 27th Aug '15 9:13:32 AM by PhiSat
Oissu!The Finnish government essentially controls the defence industry, as we need our R Ks and other gear. They still do their own business though.
Si Vis Pacem, Para PerkeleThe U.S. has "government sponsored enterprises" (GSEs) which maintain organizational structures like a private company and are distinct financial entities, but are owned by the federal government. Examples include the Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac duo that work with the housing market and the U.S. Postal Service.
They are, by and large, run quite well.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Only in the case of American defense companies they actually thrive on waste. Unneeded spending basically is their bottom line.
Oh really when?