The Slick Sales Pitch of Trump

[NicholaiRen]

15 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I actually think allowing the private sector to manage publicly funded endeavors often stifles private sector growth because so many of the contracts with the govt don't include robust competition or demand new products. When the Private sector is forced to compete exclusively in the private sector they must constantly evolve in order to succeed which often leads to innovation and businesses which are responsive to their consumers. 

The Government should keep it's hand out of the private sector as much as possible, as that will reduce competition, etc. Agreed. Also, yes, the private sector shouldn't be managing publicly funded endeavors.

However, I think it's wise if the government does take advantage of the fact that often times, it's a lot easier to hire a company to do a project rather then hiring state employees to organize and do the project on its own.

Let's take a bridge for example.

The Government can hire a company which has it's hand in the sector already to plan, engineer, and build the bridge.

Or the government can hire employees of it's own, and create a branch in order to plan, engineer, and build the bridge.

 

If the government hires the company, it will often pay a one time fee and then it'll get the bridge. This is typically by contract.

If the government hires employees, it's now paying a constant price to it's employees, as well as retirement, materials, etc.

 

Typically, when factored in, it's a lot cheaper to hire the company. Additionally, in my opinion, a lot more efficient as well. In my area, there's a company who makes bridges for the County. They can typically plan, engineer, and then build the bridge in three to four days. For the past two months, a 15-foot bridge has been closed down while Penndot(The state road crews) works on it. The reason is that Penndot is not done yet, is because there's no real motivation to get it done fast. They will ALWAYS get the "contract" to do the bridges. Meanwhile, the other company has to compete with usually two other companies for every contract it gets. If it does a bad job, the county will switch companies as it did a few years ago.

I live in Pennslyvania and there are at least 55 bridges within a 10-mile radius of me. I see this all the time.

 

Now, just because there is a single case where hiring a company is better, doesn't mean it's always better, but sometimes it is.

I've seen road crews who are hired by the local government who do a terrible job, yet keep getting the contract because they don't want to switch road crews. That's where competition dies, and the problem comes in.

[CharonY]

4 hours ago, Phi for All said:

even our Democrats are moderately right-wing compared to Europe

I have heard that fairly often, but I think it is only true in a very, very narrow sense. Specifically in the area of social services and perhaps other aspects such as worker's rights (though that is not really universal either). In other respects (e.g. social values) it is bit all over the place and perhaps one of the largest differences you will see is in respect to immigration. 

Perhaps it is fair to say that the US as a whole has a stronger libertarian influence in that sector, for example. I.e. my point is that the simple right-left distinction is a bit tricky to transfer between systems as individual issues are often placed on different scales, depending on where you are.

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

I actually think allowing the private sector to manage publicly funded endeavors often stifles private sector growth because so many of the contracts with the govt don't include robust competition or demand new products.

In  a way that can be the worst of two worlds, the lack of competition due to government backing, but also typically insufficient accountability and inherent conflict between making profit and providing necessary services. Short term it often ends up with cutting corners to bolster the baseline. Government then often does not understand the concept of sunk cost and try to keep the crappy stuff afloat.

42 minutes ago, NicholaiRen said:

If the government hires the company, it will often pay a one time fee and then it'll get the bridge. This is typically by contract.

Actually this is how it is typically done and also where we see issues. Not saying it would necessarily be better if the State builds on its own (most likely not, in fact). But often the contract goes through a tending process to the lowest bidder. Rather often in those contracts (or so it seems) folks go over budget. And rather than pulling the plug, often they pour more money in. Pulling the plug increases cost, and when trying to claw that back, the company in question may  declare bankruptcy, for example.

This does not seem to be isolated events but, at least to news reports (not sure whether studies exist), a rather common and almost world wide phenomenon.

[Ten oz]

7 minutes ago, NicholaiRen said:

The Government can hire a company which has it's hand in the sector already to plan, engineer, and build the bridge.

Or the government can hire employees of it's own, and create a branch in order to plan, engineer, and build the bridge.

If the government hires the company, it will often pay a one time fee and then it'll get the bridge. This is typically by contract.

If the government hires employees, it's now paying a constant price to it's employees, as well as retirement, materials, etc.

Typically, when factored in, it's a lot cheaper to hire the company. Additionally, in my opinion, a lot more efficient as well. In my area, there's a company who makes bridges for the County. They can typically plan, engineer, and then build the bridge in three to four days. For the past two months, a 15-foot bridge has been closed down while Penndot(The state road crews) works on it. The reason is that Penndot is not done yet, is because there's no real motivation to get it done fast. They will ALWAYS get the "contract" to do the bridges. Meanwhile, the other company has to compete with usually two other companies for every contract it gets. If it does a bad job, the county will switch companies as it did a few years ago.

I live in Pennslyvania and there are at least 55 bridges within a 10-mile radius of me. I see this all the time.

States have numerous bridges, overpasses, highways, and etc. People are needed to maintain it all in addition to build it all. Private construction companies typically operate in fields where they can sell a service or a physical piece of property. Highways and bridges aren't typically for sell. So it makes sense that local govts would hire people and manage it themselves. The Golden Gate Bridge alone for example has about 200 full time employees responsible just for maintenance. While it is true that various private sector construction companies are hired for different purposes at various stages of projects local govt employees often oversee the work and are responsible for the outcomes. The California Department of Transportation has over 18,000 employees. In PA your Dept. of Trans has 12 ,000 employees. When you say "typically" this work is done by the private sector I think you are over simplifying things. Local govts are involved every step of the way and maintain the infrastructure long after it is built. This of course varies locality by locality. Rural locations, impoverished govts, or places without the available pool of worker they may choose to entirely contract out large infrastructure. 

 

[NicholaiRen]

51 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Actually this is how it is typically done and also where we see issues. Not saying it would necessarily be better if the State builds on its own (most likely not, in fact). But often the contract goes through a tending process to the lowest bidder. Rather often in those contracts (or so it seems) folks go over budget. And rather than pulling the plug, often they pour more money in. Pulling the plug increases cost, and when trying to claw that back, the company in question may  declare bankruptcy, for example.

3

Yes, this is one of the areas I disagree with how the government handles things. However, this is especially an issue with state-run projects too.

If the state hires a cheap bidder, and the bidder goes over budget, the state has the option of simply firing them and going with someone else. However, they rarely do this.

If the state itself is the one doing the project, and they run over budget, there are far fewer options because it's the state itself.

 

Local Government actually has to provide a reason for not going with the lower Bidder. However, previous contracts going over budget is considered a valid reason, as are other issues such as bad jobs, etc.

17 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

In PA your Dept. of Trans has 12 ,000 employees. When you say "typically" this work is done by the private sector I think you are over simplifying things. Local govts are involved every step of the way and maintain the infrastructure long after it is built. This of course varies locality by locality. Rural locations, impoverished govts, or places without the available pool of worker they may choose to entirely contract out large infrastructure. 

The way it's divided up is between State, County, and Local roads.

State roads, like routes and highways, are managed by the state.

County Roads are managed by the county.

Local roads are managed by the city council/township/whatever it is.

Yes, I definitely simplified it, however, I don't feel as so I simplified it too much.

 

The service that private construction companies sell are often the construction of the bridge, repaving of the road, installation of drainage systems, etc.

I feel as though the golden gate bridge is an outlier in terms of management, however. It's a huge bridge, and in my area, bridges are rarely more than 30 feet. 

You are correct though, these things vary massively and the government should handle each situation individually in the best way possible.

 

What are some good options governments should pick from in your opinion?

My opinion is either having a dedicated branch to handle it or a single hiring of a private company.

Hiring a private company to manage things is a bad idea, because you could have simply hired people to manage it and you wouldn't have to pay the middle man(the company).

Edited October 16, 2018 by NicholaiRen

[Ten oz]

37 minutes ago, NicholaiRen said:

What are some good options governments should pick from in your opinion?

My opinion is either having a dedicated branch to handle it or a single hiring of a private company.

Hiring a private company to manage things is a bad idea, because you could have simply hired people to manage it and you wouldn't have to pay the middle man(the company).

The Bay Bridge (Eatsern span) was recently replace in Oakland, can. It was a 6.5 billion dollar project replacing 2.2 miles, Here. There were numerous logistical issues to juggle 270,000 people use the bridge everyday, there were environmental concerns, maritime concerns, and govt property issues involving Navy & Coast Guard. The state put the design of the project out to bid without the standard requirements that materials be domestic gambling than the cost savings on materials would be greater than the federal funds they would have secured using domestic materials. Ultimately the bids came in and blew away estimates several times over. The project was green lit and due to be completed in 2007. It wasn't completed till 2013. There were Numerous cost over runs and the plans had to be altered a few times. 

 

Like you said every project will require a different solution. The Bay Bridge is different than a 30 foot bridge. I think CA should have priorities using domestic materials to secure federal funds. I think that would have limited the scope on most of the bids and delivered simplier proposals based on local availability which would have also produced more realistic time scales. Some of the costs may have been higher up front but federal funds and a bridge completed several years earlier would have counteracted those costs. Basically they didn't constrain the private companies enough. The state should how managed the procurement of materials themselves rather than thinking the private companies would better be able to get a deal. 

 

[NicholaiRen]

9 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Like you said every project will require a different solution. The Bay Bridge is different than a 30 foot bridge. I think CA should have priorities using domestic materials to secure federal funds. I think that would have limited the scope on most of the bids and delivered simplier proposals based on local availability which would have also produced more realistic time scales. Some of the costs may have been higher up front but federal funds and a bridge completed several years earlier would have counteracted those costs. Basically they didn't constrain the private companies enough. The state should how managed the procurement of materials themselves rather than thinking the private companies would better be able to get a deal. 

4

Yes, the usage of local materials would have been a much better idea, agreed.

What other ways could California have handled that situation better?

[swansont]

2 hours ago, NicholaiRen said:

The Government should keep it's hand out of the private sector as much as possible, as that will reduce competition, etc. Agreed. Also, yes, the private sector shouldn't be managing publicly funded endeavors.

However, I think it's wise if the government does take advantage of the fact that often times, it's a lot easier to hire a company to do a project rather then hiring state employees to organize and do the project on its own.

Let's take a bridge for example.

Counterpoint: there are things you can't simply procure through the private sector. Let's say you want to build an atomic clock that is better than what is commercially available. You only anticipate needing a small number - there is no expectation of recurring purchases, and nobody in the private sector needs it, so this does not lend itself to any kind of assembly line production. It's a boutique item, and doesn't have much economy of scale anyway. It also requires R&D, because it's beyond the current state of the art. That makes it tough to assess cost, so you can't really make a good guess at what you should bid. And there's no guarantee of success, so you don't want to be in a situation where you don't get paid if there's no product. 

I mention this because it's an example with which I am familiar and isn't classified, but there are others. There are times where you need something, absent the worry that someone needs to make a profit on it, which means the government needs to do it.

[NicholaiRen]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

Counterpoint: there are things you can't simply procure through the private sector. Let's say you want to build an atomic clock that is better than what is commercially available. You only anticipate needing a small number - there is no expectation of recurring purchases, and nobody in the private sector needs it, so this does not lend itself to any kind of assembly line production. It's a boutique item, and doesn't have much economy of scale anyway. It also requires R&D, because it's beyond the current state of the art. That makes it tough to assess cost, so you can't really make a good guess at what you should bid. And there's no guarantee of success, so you don't want to be in a situation where you don't get paid if there's no product. 

1

Yes. This is an excellent example of something that the government would, and should, run and take care of.

[Phi for All]

10 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Basically they didn't constrain the private companies enough.

Bingo. And the biggest private contractors also have the clout to lobby for less constraints, and even hide profits from taxation. This is the way Trump runs his businesses, continues to run his businesses even though he holds the highest office. 

We let businesses argue that there are too many regulations, and when they're relaxed we get bridges and levees that fail. The extreme conservatives argue that regs destroy business, but loosening them for more profit also lets the scum and corruption seep in as well. 

[studiot]

 

10 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Bingo. And the biggest private contractors also have the clout to lobby for less constraints, and even hide profits from taxation. This is the way Trump runs his businesses, continues to run his businesses even though he holds the highest office. 

We let businesses argue that there are too many regulations, and when they're relaxed we get bridges and levees that fail. The extreme conservatives argue that regs destroy business, but loosening them for more profit also lets the scum and corruption seep in as well. 

 

I find that my views on social matters are very closely aligned to those expressed by PhiforAll.

 

Since I know quite alot about the design, building and maintenance (and sadly the inquisition when they fail) of bridges I will continue the example.

Others have suggested that you go to a contractor and ask them to design and build a bridge across so and so obstruction.

So what standards will be applied?

How wide will the lanes be?

What loading will the bridge be designed for?

What impact protection will be provided?

If the bridge is an underbridge, what headroom will be provided?

You get the drift of the questions.

[Phi for All]

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

Since I know quite alot about the design, building and maintenance (and sadly the inquisition when they fail) of bridges I will continue the example.

Others have suggested that you go to a contractor and ask them to design and build a bridge across so and so obstruction.

So what standards will be applied?

How wide will the lanes be?

What loading will the bridge be designed for?

What impact protection will be provided?

If the bridge is an underbridge, what headroom will be provided?

You get the drift of the questions.

And NONE of these things should be determined by how much profit it will generate for a private company.

I did some work for an architect who told me about a school he designed. One of the private contractors deviated from his design when they found some less expensive rooftop HVAC units. Apparently this sort of thing happens a LOT. When the architect pointed out to the school district superintendent that the new units were heavier than he'd designed the roof for, and the savings would be eaten up by the need for increased load bearing, they thanked him and terminated his contract. It's unfortunate that profit took precedence, even over the trustworthiness of the roof over children's heads. 

[StringJunky]

31 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

And NONE of these things should be determined by how much profit it will generate for a private company.

I did some work for an architect who told me about a school he designed. One of the private contractors deviated from his design when they found some less expensive rooftop HVAC units. Apparently this sort of thing happens a LOT. When the architect pointed out to the school district superintendent that the new units were heavier than he'd designed the roof for, and the savings would be eaten up by the need for increased load bearing, they thanked him and terminated his contract. It's unfortunate that profit took precedence, even over the trustworthiness of the roof over children's heads. 

American business reminds of that official  in 'Jaws', telling everybody it's ok to swim, just to keep the cash coming in.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

We let businesses argue that there are too many regulations, and when they're relaxed we get bridges and levees that fail. The extreme conservatives argue that regs destroy business, but loosening them for more profit also lets the scum and corruption seep in as well. 

Calling them regulations is business being allowed to frame the discussion. Many of them are protections for people. What they are doing is boosting profit by being allowed to cause more harm to people.

[CharonY]

58 minutes ago, swansont said:

Calling them regulations is business being allowed to frame the discussion. Many of them are protections for people. What they are doing is boosting profit by being allowed to cause more harm to people.

Aka what they turned the EPA into.

 

[NicholaiRen]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

Aka what they turned the EPA into.

 

One of the things inside of one of the EPA's policies that they put out in my state was that anybody who lived on a flood plain couldn't own a large number of prohibited items. One of these items was Chlorine. So about 15 houses in my area had to have their ingrown pools dug up because it was illegal, and if they didn't get rid of them they couldn't have flood insurance and they'd have to pay a fine. Floods come about every 10 years here, so it's necessary to have them. Shortly after making them take up their pools with the risk of losing flood insurance(the home owners had to foot the bill), the EPA retracted the policy because there were some glaringly obvious problems with it(I.E. tearing up inground pools or lose flood insurance and pay a fine).

Regulations aren't only placed on businesses you know.....

 

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Bingo. And the biggest private contractors also have the clout to lobby for less constraints, and even hide profits from taxation. This is the way Trump runs his businesses, continues to run his businesses even though he holds the highest office. 

We let businesses argue that there are too many regulations, and when they're relaxed we get bridges and levees that fail. The extreme conservatives argue that regs destroy business, but loosening them for more profit also lets the scum and corruption seep in as well. 

These are two entirely different matters.

One is the government putting parameters on government contracts. That makes sense. If you're buying something, you can decide what you want with it. That's a good thing.

One is the government putting parameters on other peoples contracts. This makes less sense. If you're buying something, you can decide what you want with it, the government shouldn't have to. Like a New York ban on super-sized sodas. Healthier? Maybe. Necessary or needed? Absolutely not.

 

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

American business reminds of that official  in 'Jaws', telling everybody it's ok to swim, just to keep the cash coming in.

I feel that many people have been led to believe that American Businesses are terrible organizations, bent on making money and completely disregarding customers, incapable of thinking beyond the next payment, and impossible to reason with.

 

 

 

Edited October 17, 2018 by NicholaiRen

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, NicholaiRen said:

One is the government putting parameters on other peoples contracts. This makes less sense. If you're buying something, you can decide what you want with it, the government shouldn't have to.

So the government should stay out of regulating what goes into products we consume? We should just trust the businesses because they promise to make a great product? If I'm buying pharmaceutical products, I'm supposed to decide what I want with it, with my knowledge of medicine? I think that's a horrible idea, unless you're a predatory business looking to prey on non-existent consumer awareness and government oversight.

[iNow]

27 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

So the government should stay out of regulating what goes into products we consume?

Cannibals and slave owners seem to think so. What possible motivation would they have to enact laws detrimental to those around them?

[NicholaiRen]

9 hours ago, Phi for All said:

So the government should stay out of regulating what goes into products we consume? We should just trust the businesses because they promise to make a great product? If I'm buying pharmaceutical products, I'm supposed to decide what I want with it, with my knowledge of medicine? I think that's a horrible idea, unless you're a predatory business looking to prey on non-existent consumer awareness and government oversight.

My apologies, I assumed when I said that, you'd realize I wasn't advocating removing every regulation ever made, just some things. Same to you @iNow. Next time I won't assume that you'll realize I'm not advocating for slavery and cannibalism.

Additionally, for the sake of actually having an on-topic discussion, I'm not assuming that just because you're Pro-Government Regulations for some things means you'd support every possible regulation ever made. I mean, I'd be just plain stupid to assume that. Although, it would allow me to simply paint you as a terrible person because I could just take every extreme and racist regulation there ever was and accuse you of supporting that. 

But I didn't. That's called respect. I respect you enough not to misrepresent your position, and I hope you can respect me enough not to misrepresent my position.

 

 

Now if you actually did happen to look at the example that explicitly mentioned instead of guessing that I support slavery and cannibalism, you'd see I mentioned a super-sized soda in New York. Again, I don't see that as an entirely necessary government regulation, which is the type of "contract parameters" I think the government should leave its hands out of.

Edited October 17, 2018 by NicholaiRen

[Phi for All]

2 minutes ago, NicholaiRen said:

My apologies, I assumed when I said that you'd realize I wasn't advocating everything, just some things.

You claimed regulating "other people's contracts" makes "less sense". You then seemed to make a claim that sounded suspiciously like "Let the buyer beware", and that the government shouldn't be helping consumers make informed decisions. Perhaps if you weren't making such general statements I would have realized you were talking about specific contracts. Do you have any examples of private contracts that shouldn't be held to government standards?

[NicholaiRen]

6 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Do you have any examples of private contracts that shouldn't be held to government standards?

 

12 hours ago, NicholaiRen said:

Like a New York ban on super-sized sodas. Healthier? Maybe. Necessary or needed? Absolutely not.

 

6 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Perhaps if you weren't making such general statements I would have realized you were talking about specific contracts.

You realize that you did the same thing by going against removing government regulations right?

In which case, I could bring up examples of your USA's previous jim crow laws and accuse you of support racist regulations.

Again. It's about respect. I can make sure that whenever we have a discussion you have to point out every statement you make with parameters relating to every situation OR I can simply assume you're making a logical argument and not focus on the minute things that you did or didn't mention.

Your choice.

 

Edited October 17, 2018 by NicholaiRen

[Phi for All]

The New York ban on supersized drinks was struck down. Perhaps it was a bad regulation.

12 minutes ago, NicholaiRen said:

You realize that you did the same thing by going against removing government regulations right?

You think so? I was pretty specific about the area I was talking about (load-bearing parameters of school roofs isn't really general). Consumer safety is about as general as I'm getting in this thread, mainly because it's the slick sales pitches by alligators like Trump that increase profit while making people sick or putting them in more danger. I'm so sorry you don't see that, it's one of the worst things about this administration.

[Ten oz]

On 10/16/2018 at 7:46 AM, iNow said:

I’m shocked by this.

We weren’t taking in enough revenue to cover our expenditures. That’s why we had a deficit.

So, we decided to cut our revenue. The deficit got worse.

It really just doesn’t make sense.

Our best course of action is obviously to cut revenues more. Basic math demands this as the only logical path forward.

...even the blind could see this coming...

Side note: Tye US government pays $1.5 Billion every single day just in interest payments, a number rapidly approaching $2B daily

Seems Republicans have a fix for the problem, cut the safety nets.

Quote

 

After instituting a $1.5 trillion tax cut and signing off on a $675 billion budget for the Department of Defense, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday that the only way to lower the record-high federal deficit would be to cut entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

https://www.newsweek.com/deficit-budget-tax-plan-social-security-medicaid-medicare-entitlement-1172941

 

 

[Phi for All]

22 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Seems Republicans have a fix for the problem, cut the safety nets.

Nothing new. Stomp your foot on the program's throat, then make fun of it and point out how feeble it is, how it can't stand on its own two feet. It works with all social programs the wealthy don't benefit from directly.

[swansont]

20 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Seems Republicans have a fix for the problem, cut the safety nets.

Thing is, social security takes in more than it spends. It's not a problem 

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4a3.html

And I was under the impression that SS revenues couldn't be spent on other programs.

[NicholaiRen]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

You think so? I was pretty specific about the area I was talking about (load-bearing parameters of school roofs isn't really general).

Well, my example regarding super-sized sodas apparently had absolutely nothing to do with my position to you because you ignored it and jumped straight to pharmaceuticals.

So if your criteria remain the same for you as it does me, I'd say yes. Your statements were general.