Spanish Election

[ashlandbuck]

Paymaster is nothing in military terms.
Local control of different units equiped with proper equipment is all that matters.
If pay was a major player in the military system then we wouldn't have a miltary.
Many factors go into a person joining the miltary and I'm here to tell you that other than the 20% that join due to a poor economic condtion, pay is not a factor.

 

[Woody1968]

Who hands out the paychecks is important, as it who has the control and under whose authority the army can act. It's basic agency theory. What you are saying doesn't change the fact that the army is nationalized and not privatized. The status of weapons and vehicle manufacturers who supply the army is irrelevant. There is no "101st Airbourne Division Brought to you by Boeing TM"

I'm done with this conversation.

 

[Nixon]

And there are perfectly good reasons why the Army must be nationalized--because it acts on the basis of the nation as a whole. Health care is a personal matter.

 

[RAMdrvr1]

I'll take a stab at this question. The basic reason is that the US companies want more profit. On a more complex and ultimately relevant level, The government doesn't want to cut the profits, because doing so would create an incentive for the drug companies to put less work into developing new medications and would also lower the amount of resources available for new research.

And a 500%profit would do away with incentive, compared to a 1000% profit?

 

[Woody1968]

And a 500%profit would do away with incentive, compared to a 1000% profit?

Ultimately, business depends on profit. Public Companies owe a duty to the shareholders to maximize the value of the common stock. I'm not saying that lowering the profit from 1000% to 500% would eliminate the incentive, but it would reduce both profit and operating capital.

 

[3yardsandacloud]

Correct me if I'm wrong here ... but by our Constitution only the Federal government can create and maintain standing armies. This is a FUNCTION of the federal goverment. Just as creating National Laws and Amendments to the Constitution are FUNCTIONS of the national government. Independant institutions are NOT ALLOWED to take on these functions. That is how our country was set up. Only the President and the representatives we elect are given the power to declare war and send our men and women to battle. Why is this even a topic?

To assume the the army is one area where the government is better than the private sector is wrong. This is NO provision that would allow this to happen, short of alterning the Constitution.

Oh, and FWIW, IMO the private sector would be MUCH, MUCH, MUCH better at running an army or a war. They would have NO political restrains in how they operated (see almost any war, but in particular Vietnam). The ONLY goal would be to win the war as quickly and efficiently as possible. Their would be no areas they couldn't bomb or tactics they couldn't use. They would feel no repercussions or pressures from an upcoming election. On the flip side, we as citizens would have little voice in who, what, where, when or why our children were fighting and dying for. Our founding fathers were smarter than we ever give them credit for.

 

[Woody1968]

There would be no areas they couldn't bomb or tactics they couldn't use.

And this is a good thing?

 

[Nixon]

"Correct me if I'm wrong here ... but by our Constitution only the Federal government can create and maintain standing armies. This is a FUNCTION of the federal goverment. Just as creating National Laws and Amendments to the Constitution are FUNCTIONS of the national government. Independant institutions are NOT ALLOWED to take on these functions. That is how our country was set up. Only the President and the representatives we elect are given the power to declare war and send our men and women to battle. Why is this even a topic?"

It's a topic because I asked for an area where the government was better at running an industry than the private sector, and that's what Woody gave me. Then I had to explain why this was different and unique compared to health care.

 

[Woody1968]

What Nixon said, but there are other examples as well, like the police and other services, as well as the "industry" of Securities Regulation, etc. The reason being is that there is a compelling interest to monitor some industries due to the vulnerability of those industries for abuse.

 

[3yardsandacloud]

Woody1968: "And this is a good thing?"

Read my last 2 sentences ... I don't think this is a good thing.

Nixon, yes I understand. I guess my question was retorical. Using the army as an example is not really relavant. Private entites are NOT ALLOWED (by law) to create armies. Saying the Government does this better isn't really correct. I think the Post Office IS a much better comparison. If you guys want to compare Government vs Private sector, the USPO vs FedEx or UPS, or Airborne, or whoever else might be more enlightning.

 

[Woody1968]

There is no industry that is better served being controlled by a government bureacracy than being served by private industry that I know of.

That's the statement I was contradicting by using the Army as an example. Wheter or not it is constitutional doesn't change the fact that the Army is better served as a governmentally controlled agency. Your example works as well, so I'll leave it at that.