this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2024
2257 points (98.5% liked)

Microblog Memes

5765 readers
2622 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DancingBear@midwest.social 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You’re a little biased against public sector, and seem to be in favor or privatization. I assume your incorrect understanding of public versus private sector efficiency is based on the cliche that public workers are so lazy or whatever.

But here’s an interesting article discussing the issue. I myself am biased against private sector in favor of the benefits of public sector efficiencies (no profit motive for example). But it’s an interesting article.

https://theconversation.com/pursuing-efficiency-in-the-public-sector-why-privatisation-is-not-necessarily-the-answer-13142

[–] AIhasUse@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

What did I say that made you think I have an "incorrect understanding of public versus private sector"?

Do you mean that because I think the government wouldn't be good at running a business that I misunderstood something? The us government is famously bad about spending outrageous amounts for simple things. Cups that cost over $1,000, toilet seats for over $10,000.. there's tons of things like this. That may be fine when you don't have to worry about being profitable, but it won't fly when trying to run a business.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/opinion/pentagon-budget-military-spending-waste.html

[–] DancingBear@midwest.social 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I’m not sure the United States military is the example you think it is

[–] AIhasUse@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You're so cryptic. I don't know if it is intentional or not, but you really don't answer clearly or explain your reasoning.

[–] DancingBear@midwest.social 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

I mean, I guess the us military is the largest military in the world apparently even if you added up all the other militaries together.

So by your logic there is no other private or public military that is better than the United States, but their goal is being the best, so but, and

If you are suggesting that the military of a government can be better run by a private organization, such as a corporation…. I mean, I guess you are saying that oligarchy and corporate rule is better than democracy?

To start with such a large organization won’t benefit your argument in any way

, and I suppose the service of the military is being the best?

[–] AIhasUse@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

By what metric do you think the US has a military larger than all other militaries combined? The firepower index puts the US at the top, but most other metrics don't. Even with the firepower index, though, no stretch of the imagination would put the US above all other militaries combined.

The reason the US military is as powerful as it is is not because it is such a well run organization. It is because it gets so much money from taxes. It has nothing to do with governments being able to run things more efficiently than for-profit companies. So many issues in the world are a direct result of how hyper efficient companies are. Running more efficiently doesn't mean it is better for the world. The opposite is true.

[–] DancingBear@midwest.social 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

So, my question would be what private company are you trying to compare to the United States military?

[–] AIhasUse@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Well, my whole point is that just that government doesn't usually do as good at running things as private companies. Another big example would be NASA vs. SpaceX. I think it is much easier to come up with examples of private companies getting more bang for their buck than governments. My hunch would be that it has to do with profit incentives. Government workers generally get a set salary whereas private companies stand to gain a whole lot more if they have big innovations.

Also, oftentimes, there is an incentive for government agencies to get involved in worse deals if it means siphoning money off to friends, whereas this makes less sense in private companies.

[–] DancingBear@midwest.social 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Well, again. Show me an example of a private company that is comparable to the United States military.

In the case of space x. It is precisely space x’s ability to waste money that made it so that it could do the research and development.

NASA would never be allowed to test and blow up ten rockets to build a new space ship.

Your own examples are proving you wrong

And now you are just rambling

[–] AIhasUse@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

Yeah, the freedom to research is a good thing and leads to increased efficiency. SpaceX was able to make reusable rockets in a fraction of the time that NASA has been around. It's astonishing how badly you want to cling to this narrative that governments run highly efficient organizations. This isn't even something that people generally debate about. NASA is literally hiring SpaceX to make their rockets because they are so much better at it. Your stance is that Billy is better at making burgers than Sally and yet Billy is literally buying Sally's burgers instead of making their own. The issue is that you came into discussion with a conclusion, and now that you are trying to justify it, it's just slipping between your fingers. There's no shame in taking some time to rethink things if it's not adding up.

[–] Armok_the_bunny@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

IIRC the reason military spending is so extreme is because the US military is required by law to have the paperwork to prove their entire supply chain is domestic, as part of a worst case readiness thing. Could be wrong though, not like I've really looked into it all that much.

[–] AIhasUse@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The US military gets so much stuff from other countries. There was a "Buy American Act" about 100 years ago, which still stands, but it allows for so many exceptions that get used very often. There have been a few other similar acts since then, but they all include well-used exceptions.

[–] DancingBear@midwest.social 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

What does this have to do with comparing the public us military to a similar private organization?

When the service provided is influencing world politics and securing our country, I don’t think efficiency means the same thing. I also don’t think there are any other private sector businesses that could compare to us military. And even if there are, I would assume that all of their workers were trained by the us military.