For people not for profit? Stupid?

[John_Taylor]

Just my opinion/rant (because I've had too many unpleasant experiences with this concept):

Don't you overly idealistic people a bit irritating sometimes?

Think of what might happen if everything was run "for people, not for profit."

Restaurants:
Your food will taste like crap because no reason for you to cook good food. Just look at communist countries

Hotels:
Place you stay will be unpleasant because theres no need for your money.

When's the last time a governmental agency provided you with great service anyways? Think about it. Just check the courthouse for proof.
It happens, but not often.


Now I'm done ranting lol.

 

[Le Parisien]

I think you must be American from the tone of your post, as if only profit alone can drive things forward.

It's NOT that simple.

You are talking about the ideal case of "perfect competition" where innovation and offering better products/services at better prices is the only way to corporate profits.

But in the real world, things are more complicated.

- You can get lots of profit if you have a situation of virtual monpoly, just look at Microsoft.

- You can be a private company and still deliver crappy services, just look at the UK's railway system. The crappiet and the most dangerous railway system in western Europe.

- With the right setting, state-owned companies can perform quite well. An example: the French national railway company SNCF, one of the most technically advanced and reliable railway systems in the world. And the tickets are NOT over priced.

- You can be a profit driven company and get insanely "juicy" contracts from the government if you have connections. Basically corruption. Look at those firms that get contracts in Iraq through the government. God knows how much they paid in political contribution...

Basically, we need regulations and rules that would make innovation and better products/services at better prices the only way for companies to make profits. Then we as consumers will always benefit from it.

 

[Visceral]

In any for-profit business, profit always comes first. For little things, this isn't a big deal, but for big, important things, it produces a conflict of interest.

Would you want to go to a hospital where, at any moment, they can refuse to treat you because they're not making as much money off it as they'd like to? Under the current for-profit system, the rich can spend billions on luxury drugs and cosmetic surgery while poor people die of curable diseases because they can't afford treatment. This is why I support socialized medicine: a person's access to medical care should depend on their need, not their ability to pay up front or through insurance. Additionally, treating diseases is more profitable than curing them, so people worldwide are allowed to suffer. Research that would advance the medical field is expensive and results are not guaranteed, so it's pursued only half-heartedly, if at all.

Same goes for education. Imagine how many people would not be able to afford to send their children to school without the taxpayer-funded public school system. Know that the decisions that private school administrators make are determined as much, if not more, by the need to make a profit than by the desire to provide a quality education.

People producing goods or rendering services for profit will provide you with what you need and want only to the point that it's advantageous for them to do so. Suppose this isn't enough for you ... what would you do then?

 

[dannowillbookem]

dude i need a cigarette

but yeah profiteers bad people etc

 

[diplomatic_lies]

Certain things need to be run by the government, and certain things need to be run by private companies.

Public-focused services like major infrastructure, the law, and the army need to be under government control. You can't have cops only protecting the rich, or taking bribes from mafia warlords.

However, consumer products must be produced by private companies, otherwise the concepts of "quality" and "customer service" would not exist. The Soviet Union's consumer industries, for example, were very inefficient. Simply because there was no competition. As they say, the USSR has plenty of big tanks and artillery, but there's never enough toothbrushes.

 

[John_Taylor]

Certain things need to be run by the government, and certain things need to be run by private companies.

Public-focused services like major infrastructure, the law, and the army need to be under government control. You can't have cops only protecting the rich, or taking bribes from mafia warlords.

However, consumer products must be produced by private companies, otherwise the concepts of "quality" and "customer service" would not exist. The Soviet Union's consumer industries, for example, were very inefficient. Simply because there was no competition. As they say, the USSR has plenty of big tanks and artillery, but there's never enough toothbrushes.

precisely....