It's cute that people still get worked up about stuff like this, as though they're honestly surprised that legislators are bought and sold.
Here's the thing: the system is broken, and it impossible to fix. It will fail, though, and that's when there's an opportunity to replace it with something better (or, something far far worse).
You go against the big media companies and their news services will make sure you don't get elected again. The news networks pick who wins and who loses elections. Propaganda works. Look at all the legislators who signed the net neutrality pledge. They were all defeated, 100%.
While you may be right in that the system won't be fixed, the correct response is to not get worked up about it and sit around waiting for the system to fail. It's not like government will disband and people will look around and say "Ok, that didn't work. Anyone have any other ideas?"
Keep getting worked up, and keep making noise about it. More people need to care more.
Yeah? Wake up and vote for...who? Neither side of our current two party system has made noteworthy improvements. So...it's election day....I'm wide awake...and who am I supposed to be voting for?
A naive question: we have a lot of wealthy people sympathetic to the idea of a minimal government, why aren't they buying legislation that prevents this blatant corruption?
"Minimal government" is just a slogan used by the people who are buying our government. Their idea of minimal government is eliminating the EPA, fewer bank regulations, and the like. Homeland security, more IP laws, restrictions on privacy? Oh, we have to make some sacrifices for our own security
Indeed, the other day I heard some guy on the radio talking about how garbage collection should be provided by the private marketplace rather than as a government service paid for by taxes. Look, that might be a cute experiment in New Hampshire where the population is described in terms of villages, but not in any serious metropolis. I probably should have called in and explained the tragedy of the commons.
San Jose's garbage service is nominally provided by a private firm.
Under contract to the city. The competition happens at the tender level, it would be highly inefficient to have multiple garbage pickup companies vying for the business of each individual resident. Past experience with private fire engine companies and the like suggests that this would end badly.
Fine, show me somewhere that doesn't use a tender-contract model.
If something is actually too inefficient, the costs will stop them and they'll come up with a plan that is "efficient enough".
Why do you think companies seek monopoly concessions, or that distributors seek same from producers in the private marketplace? That's what the current litigation over trash disposal contracts in Sf turns upon: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2011/07/san-franciscos-garba...
> Fine, show me somewhere that doesn't use a tender-contract model.
That's a different issue. Politics....
>> If something is actually too inefficient, the costs will stop them and they'll come up with a plan that is "efficient enough".
> Why do you think companies seek monopoly concessions, or that distributors seek same from producers in the private marketplace?
To avoid competition. Of course that question isn't related to the statement quoted.
Yes, some garbage companies are/were mobbed up. Since some of them had city franchises, it's unclear why you'd bring that up. In any event, it's as irrelevant as the fact that the mob engages in other biz.
In my suburban New Jersey neighborhood, garbage collection is handled by two private companies. Granted, we're not a serious metropolis, but we're not exactly a village either. The system appears to work, trash gets collected, and whenever my provider attempts to jack up rates I call and threaten to switch and they play ball.
Here's the thing: the system is broken, and it impossible to fix. It will fail, though, and that's when there's an opportunity to replace it with something better (or, something far far worse).