 |
| |
|
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:21
|
|
quote:
Newfoundland state oil would necessarily need people in Newfoundland at the earliest stage as it would be politically unpalatable to base them elsewhere. Remember though at the initial stage you would have to recruit people before any exploration is done so there would have been the possibility that nothing would be found. I'm also curious about how fun it would be politically to see 10-15 early drilling failures at 30 milllion dollars a pop. After 3 or 4 , the state oil company would have been shut down as another pipe-dream |
That's why a cost-benefit analysis has to be made! I am just saying that discarding this idea from the get go just because "govurmut dont no how to do stuff" is silly.
quote:
High School Communism meets Market Reality 101.
Sure, they want the successes, but can they wear the failures?
|
Oh, you're such a brave fighter and prover of wrongs, nye. What would we do without you? 
quote:
I know and I don't pretend they are. But I do find the comparison interesting. An oil company can throw thousands of man-hours into exploring and developing something and people act like its a windfall instead of the reward for hard work.
If a worker works hard, all the commies cry out if they don't get full value of their labours. Appropriating value becuase you own something is seen as wrong. |
That's because there is another thing at play in these discussions, which has nothing to do with "owning stuff", "earning stuff", etc. All of these are only a part of the discussion. There is also what will be done with the wealth that is earned in the process. The goal here is not to maximize the wealth that is created in the process, necessarily, but to maximize the average non-wealth ( i.e. not income per capita, but rather a utility function that is only partly based on it) benefit it brings to people.
When one fights for the rights of the worker, when one ensures that that worker gets paid more, has more benefits, etc. The increase in the lifestyle of that individual would be much bigger than the raise in the money provided to the CEO, or the rich stockholder of the company that. 1000 bucks a month, for example, won't matter nearly as much to the CEO as they would to the worker. Thus, increasing pay for the workers is more important. However, improving performance, through meriting good personal performance with more pay is also important for the same reasons.
These should be reconciled with each other, with an optimum for the happiness of people, not maximum total output of the society. These aren't always the same, especially if the society/market with the maximum total output brings the wealth created mainly to those who are wealthy already.
Remember, economics isn't about how to bring the output to maximum. Economics is a study of the behavior of people and goods. It's a tool.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Az
|
|
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:21
|
|
quote:
It's not silly when governments are not well suited to judging prospects and gambling with public dollars.
You really don't want to lecture Canadians about this when we just spent $2 billion on a data base to keep track of the gun ownership of 30 million people?
It's a $2 billion dollar computer system, that still doesn't stop 4 Mounties from being wasted despite we were told how it would be a boon to law enforcement and help them make good judgements about properties they had to approach, fer fecks sakes! WTF didn't it tell them that the moron had an assault weapon?! What, because the government doesn't know **** from stink and can barely be trusted with our retirement savings? Oops. Strike that. Anyone under thirty is fairly sure they are on their own. /rant
Given that, you have a mile to go to come by chance that governments should be allowed to gamble with public money.
|
I am very sorry about your government sucking, and that's why I wish there was more direct government (as in immideate influence on politicians based on performance in economic matters), however, both Canada and Israel have many successful government corporations that ran once, and in Israel, many are still running, while those that are the main proponents of the privatization are ironically the ones that do the most damage to them ( coincidence? I don't think so ).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:21
|
|
Yes, so instead of joking about killing in general, you're joking about someone specific, about how you'd specifically like him to no longer exist. It's beyond repulsive.
The only people who actually merit death are war criminals and torturers, and while some of NYE's posts are torture, that's not the kind I mean.
And hell, from a pragmatic standpoint, it just alientates people from our viewpoint and confirms in their minds that we're nothing more than a bunch of ideological murderers who, if given the chance, would repeat the crimes of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
High School Communism meets Market Reality 101.
Sure, they want the successes, but can they wear the failures? |
Thats my point. Oil exploration takes deep pockets and a willingness to accept very large risks and the failures that come with those risks. I'm just imaging how the political feeling would be about a government venture if the first ten wells didn't bring a commercial success. I'm betting the public wouldn't care much that the well was a technical success or that it validated the concept of the play. Meanwhile, the opposition parties are having a field day about this "government waste while many of our people have inadequate healthcare/education/ roads"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azazel
Well, if newfoundland's people don't want to change their government, what can I say?
I mean, in europe and around the world, government does own bussinesses. The fact that newfoundland's government is such a case can be blamed only on the people who elect the government, i.e. "the people" |
Actually the individuals and even the parties that make up the government have changed but there has been a government disaster of some type at frequent enough intervals that people in NL really distrust government to get it right when it comes to running or supporting any business venture. It actually places a huge burden on government negotiators as they feel the need to avoid the appearance of " making a bad deal" at any cost. Actually they are pretty gun-shy as a deal that might be objectively fair might not pass muster.
Thats why I laughed at the idea of a Newfoundland government oil company. Its not that it is not possible . . . its just that such a concept ignores every existing political reality
|
|
| |
|
|
|
pchang
|
 |
Cupertino?
Aug 1999
time: 05:21
|
|
I think Oerdin posted in the wrong thread. As for Government businesses, you should take a look at what happened when Gray Davis tried to get California into the electricity business a few years ago. The results there are much more typical. Most politicians are good politicians, not good businessmen. The inverse is also true. We gravitate towards where our talents lie.
Last edited by pchang on 23-03-2005 at 01:58
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by pchang
I think Oerdin posted in the wrong thread. As for Government businesses, you should take a look at what happened when Gray Davis tried to get California into the electricity business a few years ago. The results there are much more typical. Most politicians are good politicians, not good businessmen. The inverse is also true. We gravitate towards where our talents lie. |
I can agree with this.
I also think that the public has a very different expectation of a government actor in a business area. The government actor may be expected to pursue public policy even through the business entity ( say local hiring instead of hiring the most qualified people) . .. and losses are a lot harder to accept if the public sees that money as something that could have funded a new school or a new hospital bed.
I often see government agencies in business as having a continuing conflict. First there is the conflict of the business with government policy. Then mix in the fact that government will be regulating the industry and it is even more fun.
I believe that the most effective government businesses are those where the government takes a hands off approach and allows some flexibility. For example a large oil company tied to one geographic area has much higher risks than one that is geographically diversified.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by General Ludd
There is little difference between buisness and politics. |
I can't agree with this
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-03-2005 23:57
|