A Good Corporate Citizen

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It bid in an open market for this contract. The fact that the customer is the government does not negate the free market aspects. And it was the customer (the gov't) that caught Aramark in its fraudalent and disgusting practices. Unless someone is arguing that at least Aramark engaged in this disgusting deception at a lower cost than the government would have, I see no relevance whatsoever in their responses except to contort reality in defense of their irrelevant utopian views.

Yes, because feeding jailed inmates is something that always occurs in a free market. The fact that the supplier is a contractor does not negate the non free market aspects.

 

[dismal]

It bid in an open market for this contract. The fact that the customer is the government does not negate the free market aspects. And it was the customer (the gov't) that caught Aramark in its fraudalent and disgusting practices. Unless someone is arguing that at least Aramark engaged in this disgusting deception at a lower cost than the government would have, I see no relevance whatsoever in their responses except to contort reality in defense of their irrelevant utopian views.

Yes, because feeding jailed inmates is something that always occurs in a free market. The fact that the supplier is a contractor does not negate the non free market aspects.

But in Western Djibouti inmates bargain with cigarettes for high quality meals among multiple competing food providers, or something else like that that's not particularly true or relevant to the current case of a government contract.

 

[laughing dog]

It bid in an open market for this contract. The fact that the customer is the government does not negate the free market aspects. And it was the customer (the gov't) that caught Aramark in its fraudalent and disgusting practices. Unless someone is arguing that at least Aramark engaged in this disgusting deception at a lower cost than the government would have, I see no relevance whatsoever in their responses except to contort reality in defense of their irrelevant utopian views.

Yes, because feeding jailed inmates is something that always occurs in a free market. The fact that the supplier is a contractor does not negate the non free market aspects.

Feeding people occurs in a free market. Please explain using normal usage when Aramark did not bid in a free market to get this contract.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Yes, because feeding jailed inmates is something that always occurs in a free market. The fact that the supplier is a contractor does not negate the non free market aspects.

Feeding people occurs in a free market. Please explain using normal usage when Aramark did not bid in a free market to get this contract.

So you are basically equivocating between people in general and jailed inmates in particular. Good one. I suppose it makes sense given the other views you have expressed on this board.

 

[laughing dog]

Feeding people occurs in a free market. Please explain using normal usage when Aramark did not bid in a free market to get this contract.

So you are basically equivocating between people in general and jailed inmates in particular. Good one. I suppose it makes sense given the other views you have expressed on this board.

Instead of responding with your usual nonsense, just explain using normal usage when Aramark did not bid in a free market to get this contract. According to your "reasoning", if firm A contracts with firm B for IT services, that is not a free market transaction because the employees of firm A have no choice in using other IT services at work.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So prison inmates are exactly like employees at a firm. This just gets better.

 

[laughing dog]

So prison inmates are exactly like employees at a firm. This just gets better.

Instead of posting more gibberish, just explain using normal usage how Aramark did not bid in a free market to get this contract.

 

[ksen]

So prison inmates are exactly like employees at a firm. This just gets better.

probably more true than you know

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So prison inmates are exactly like employees at a firm. This just gets better.

Instead of posting more gibberish, just explain using normal usage how Aramark did not bid in a free market to get this contract.

I can only work with the material you give me. If you want my attempts to relate your posts to the real world to make sense, post better posts.

 

[Canard DuJour]

It's the application of "free market" principles outside the narrow set of conditions in which they work. It does, in that sense, tell us something about the so-called free market. We might say misapplication of free market principles but that's still acknowledging their limitations.

 

[RavenSky]

Arguments in this thread sound like "no true free-market private company"

Sounds to me like this private company has problems throughout its operation in multiple prisons in multiple states. It also sounds like government oversight is partially responsible (along with independent press) for bringing the issues to light. It certainly wasn't good corporate citizenship on the part of Aramark.

http://www.privateci.org/rap_aramark.html

 

[dismal]

It's the application of "free market" principles outside the narrow set of conditions in which they work. It does, in that sense, tell us something about the so-called free market. We might say misapplication of free market principles but that's still acknowledging their limitations.

But perhaps it would be better to point out the flaws in free markets in cases that involve free markets.

If people insist on pointing out the flaws in free markets while discussing cases that don't involve free markets they achieve little but a demonstration that they don't understand what free markets are and perhaps do not begin to understand why advocates of free market principles believe they lead to good results for consumers and society.

 

[ksen]

dismal, how is this not a free market?

Two entities contracting services together sounds kind of free marketish.

Why does it matter that one entity is the government unless the government held a gun to Aramark's head and forced them to bid on the contract and take it?

 

[dismal]

dismal, how is this not a free market?

Two entities contracting services together sounds kind of free marketish.

Why does it matter that one entity is the government unless the government held a gun to Aramark's head and forced them to bid on the contract and take it?

There are elements that are free marketish and there are elements that aren't. The ones that aren't have already been noted in the thread, but if you missed them we can start with first principles.

Why do free market advocates believe free markets produce good outcomes for society? What elements are necessary?

 

[ksen]

dismal, how is this not a free market?

Two entities contracting services together sounds kind of free marketish.

Why does it matter that one entity is the government unless the government held a gun to Aramark's head and forced them to bid on the contract and take it?

There are elements that are free marketish and there are elements that aren't. The ones that aren't have already been noted in the thread, but if you missed them we can start with first principles.

Or instead of playing 20 questions you could be nice enough to point out the posts where the non-free market elements were posted.

Why do free market advocates believe free markets produce good outcomes for society?

Always?

What elements are necessary?

Guns and Fox News.

 

[dismal]

There are elements that are free marketish and there are elements that aren't. The ones that aren't have already been noted in the thread, but if you missed them we can start with first principles.

Or instead of playing 20 questions you could be nice enough to point out the posts where the non-free market elements were posted.

Why do free market advocates believe free markets produce good outcomes for society?

Always?

What elements are necessary?

Guns and Fox News.

He who knows only one side of the argument knows neither.

OK, a few quickies:

1) The end customer, prisoners, are not free to contract on their own
2) The end customer, prisoners, are not free to pursue other food sources if they find their current food unsatisfactory
3) The people who enter the contract, government officials, are not going to be the ones eating the food
4) The people who enter the contract, government officials, do not necessarily have the correct incentives to get the highest quality food service
5) The people who enter the contract, government officials, maybe quite happy with food running out or generally sucking so long as the consequences do not stick to them
6) The people who enter the contract, government officials, may just care about hitting some budget number or not care much at all. We don't really know what they care about.
7) The people who oversee the contract, government officials, may not have much incentive or ability to see that the service is being provided at the levels they contracted for.
8) The people who enter and oversee the contract, government officials, are spending other people's money. No takes as much care with another's money as he does with his own.
9) The people who enter and oversee the contract, government officials, are not likely to be held responsible for how they manage this money. Or did you forget to add the link where the government officials people responsible for hiring and managing Aramark were losing their jobs over this?
10) The end customers, prisoners, have little or no recourse if they are unhappy.

 

[laughing dog]

Instead of posting more gibberish, just explain using normal usage how Aramark did not bid in a free market to get this contract.

I can only work with the material you give me. If you want my attempts to relate your posts to the real world to make sense, post better posts.

In the bolded request, point to the words you find hard to make sense of - "explain", "normal", "usage", "did", "not", "bid", "in", "a", "free", "market", "to", "get", "this", "contract".

 

[laughing dog]

Arguments in this thread sound like "no true free-market private company"

Yup. The notion that the contract is not the result of a free market is fascinating. The arguments advanced would indicate the following situations are not free market outcomes:
1) Aramark bids and wins a contract to provide meals in dorms at a private college (the students did not get to choose),
2) a parent buys food at the grocery store and prepares meals for her children (the children did not get to choose, and if the kids don't like the food, the parent does not lose her job).

Really, it would be humorous if these responses were one off attempts at ideological spin.

 

[ksen]

Thanks for taking the time to write these out.

He who knows only one side of the argument knows neither.

OK, a few quickies:

1) The end customer, prisoners, are not free to contract on their own
2) The end customer, prisoners, are not free to pursue other food sources if they find their current food unsatisfactory
3) The people who enter the contract, government officials, are not going to be the ones eating the food
4) The people who enter the contract, government officials, do not necessarily have the correct incentives to get the highest quality food service
5) The people who enter the contract, government officials, maybe quite happy with food running out or generally sucking so long as the consequences do not stick to them
6) The people who enter the contract, government officials, may just care about hitting some budget number or not care much at all. We don't really know what they care about.
7) The people who oversee the contract, government officials, may not have much incentive or ability to see that the service is being provided at the levels they contracted for.
8) The people who enter and oversee the contract, government officials, are spending other people's money. No takes as much care with another's money as he does with his own.
9) The people who enter and oversee the contract, government officials, are not likely to be held responsible for how they manage this money. Or did you forget to add the link where the government officials people responsible for hiring and managing Aramark were losing their jobs over this?
10) The end customers, prisoners, have little or no recourse if they are unhappy.

I think the biggest flaw above is that the prisoners are not Aramark's customers, at all. The contracting facility, a prison in this case, is Aramark's customer.

The ones about the government officials not being the ones to eat Aramark's food don't really make any sense. That's like saying since the CEO of Ford isn't going to be using those 10-key adding machines then Ford's purchase of them from Staples isn't a free market transaction.

 

[Canard DuJour]

It's the application of "free market" principles outside the narrow set of conditions in which they work. It does, in that sense, tell us something about the so-called free market. We might say misapplication of free market principles but that's still acknowledging their limitations.

But perhaps it would be better to point out the flaws in free markets in cases that involve free markets.

Well, no, such cases barely exist if anything involving government disqualifies them.

If people insist on pointing out the flaws in free markets while discussing cases that don't involve free markets they achieve little but a demonstration that they don't understand what free markets are and perhaps do not begin to understand why advocates of free market principles believe they lead to good results for consumers and society.

They're pointing out a fatal flaw if government involvement means not free market, since market economies barely function without it.