A Good Corporate Citizen

[PyramidHead]

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.

Additionally, all of dismal's points would still hold if Aramark were entering into a contract with a privately run prison, if one existed. He would then be committed to the strange view that prisons per se, by their very nature, are unable to participate in the free market.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Thanks for taking the time to write these out.



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.

Additionally, all of dismal's points would still hold if Aramark were entering into a contract with a privately run prison, if one existed. He would then be committed to the strange view that prisons per se, by their very nature, are unable to participate in the free market.

Most of them would also disqualify commercial entities like Aramark which, by their very nature, cater for end consumers who don't negotiate contracts.

(ETA: as LD wittily points out above)

 

[laughing dog]

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.

You forgot #4-9 which are unverifiable assumptions that clearly apply to large private firms as well.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Additionally, all of dismal's points would still hold if Aramark were entering into a contract with a privately run prison, if one existed. He would then be committed to the strange view that prisons per se, by their very nature, are unable to participate in the free market.

If there were such a think as a private prison. But again, the so-called "private prisons" are all government contract prisons. There is no such thing as a private prison, and by definition there cannot be.

 

[ksen]

Is the mere presence of government enough to make a transaction not free market based?

 

[coloradoatheist]

I actually have to agree with ksen and ld here, as much as I hate to admit it. But I see the free market as as closer to evolution and natural selection where you will have bad and good mutations all the time and the question is how long the bad mutation can stay around. How long and how much can Aramark serve rats and stay in business? And the government after this contract is up with them should hire someone else and since it's a contract, they can go after them for breach of contract.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Is the mere presence of government enough to make a transaction not free market based?

Not necessarily, but when a function is entirely a government function that won't exist without the government - such as a prison - then you have a pretty good clue that it isn't a free market based activity.

Ok, it is possible that organized crime might also run such a facility, but we're talking an extreme example here.

 

[PyramidHead]

Additionally, all of dismal's points would still hold if Aramark were entering into a contract with a privately run prison, if one existed. He would then be committed to the strange view that prisons per se, by their very nature, are unable to participate in the free market.

If there were such a think as a private prison. But again, the so-called "private prisons" are all government contract prisons. There is no such thing as a private prison, and by definition there cannot be.

So? Dismal tried to make the point that because the inmates could not choose different food, the transaction between Aramark and the prison did not take place under free market conditions. But that reasoning is absurd, since it could apply to many non-prison situations where the end users of a product can't choose other options. I used to work in an office, and if my employer bought a bunch of computers from Dell and I wanted to use a Mac, I was out of luck. Does that mean the purchase of Dell computers by my old company wasn't a mutually agreed-upon exchange of money for products?

 

[laughing dog]

Is the mere presence of government enough to make a transaction not free market based?

Not necessarily, but when a function is entirely a government function that won't exist without the government - such as a prison - then you have a pretty good clue that it isn't a free market based activity.

Only by your unique standards, not normal understanding of the term. Free market based activity describes the activity not the participants.

 

[ksen]

Is the mere presence of government enough to make a transaction not free market based?

Not necessarily, but when a function is entirely a government function that won't exist without the government - such as a prison - then you have a pretty good clue that it isn't a free market based activity.

Ok, it is possible that organized crime might also run such a facility, but we're talking an extreme example here.

Since when is feeding people "entirely a government function that won't exist without the government?"

 

[Axulus]

So if the government went out and choose an incompetent contractor that provides shoddy service and products, that's an example of the free market in action? Are you guys for real?

Is every screw up and every law broken by a government employee also the free market in action, since the employees are private citizens participating in a competitive labor market?

 

[coloradoatheist]

So if the government went out and choose an incompetent contractor that provides shoddy service and products, that's an example of the free market in action? Are you guys for real?

I would say yes, even though the government is the contractor. Prisons aren't a free market, but bids for things are. But with a free market is every single product/service going to be perfect?

 

[laughing dog]

So if the government went out and choose an incompetent contractor that provides shoddy service and products, that's an example of the free market in action? Are you guys for real?

How would that be any different if a private firm choose an incompetent contractor?

 

[ksen]

So if the government went out and choose an incompetent contractor that provides shoddy service and products, that's an example of the free market in action? Are you guys for real?

Why wouldn't it be? Are you for real? Where does competence enter into a free market interaction?

 

[Axulus]

So if the government went out and choose an incompetent contractor that provides shoddy service and products, that's an example of the free market in action? Are you guys for real?

How would that be any different if a private firm choose an incompetent contractor?

The point is that a private firm has their incentives better aligned to reduce that risk compared to a government entity making that decision. A private firm also has better incentives to monitor the contract for breaches and aggressively pursue remedies it is entitled to for breach.

Furthermore, what is the point that the OP is trying to make? That the government sometimes makes dumb decisions and hires contractors that provide shoddy service and have reputations for breaching contracts? That the government unwisely took into account only price and did not properly evaluate other factors when determining which bid to accept?

The pro-free market argument tends to be along the lines that there are shitty businesses out there, but they must either adapt or die because customers will disappear if they remain shitty, so a shitty business tends to be the exception. However, that does _not_ happen if government continues to funnel money to them whether or not they adapt, allowing a shitty business to remain viable.

 

[coloradoatheist]

How would that be any different if a private firm choose an incompetent contractor?

The point is that a private firm has their incentives better aligned to reduce that risk compared to a government entity making that decision. A private firm also has better incentives to monitor the contract for breaches and aggressively pursue remedies it is entitled to for breach.

Furthermore, what is the point that the OP is trying to make? That the government makes dumb decisions and hires contractors that provide shoddy service and have reputations for breaching contracts?

Yes they have an incentive to do something, but not every company does. So if a company doesn't figure out in the long term on how to provide it, it goes out of business.

 

[ksen]

Furthermore, what is the point that the OP is trying to make? That the government sometimes makes dumb decisions and hires contractors that provide shoddy service and have reputations for breaching contracts? That the government unwisely took into account only price and did not properly evaluate other factors when determining which bid to accept?

 

[Axulus]

The point is that a private firm has their incentives better aligned to reduce that risk compared to a government entity making that decision. A private firm also has better incentives to monitor the contract for breaches and aggressively pursue remedies it is entitled to for breach.

Furthermore, what is the point that the OP is trying to make? That the government makes dumb decisions and hires contractors that provide shoddy service and have reputations for breaching contracts?

Yes they have an incentive to do something, but not every company does. So if a company doesn't figure out in the long term on how to provide it, it goes out of business.

Unless a government continues to funnel money to it, allowing it to remain in business despite not figuring it out.

 

[laughing dog]

How would that be any different if a private firm choose an incompetent contractor?

The point is that a private firm has their incentives better aligned to reduce that risk compared to a government entity making that decision. A private firm also has better incentives to monitor the contract for breaches and aggressively pursue remedies it is entitled to for breach.

Ignoring the dubious validity of those claims, they are irrelevant to the question as to whether or not this contract was the result of free market activity.

Furthermore, what is the point that the OP is trying to make? That the government sometimes makes dumb decisions and hires contractors that provide shoddy service and have reputations for breaching contracts? That the government unwisely took into account only price and did not properly evaluate other factors when determining which bid to accept?

The pro-free market argument tends to be along the lines that there are shitty businesses out there, but they must either adapt or die because customers will disappear if they remain shitty, so a shitty business tends to be the exception. However, that does _not_ happen if government continues to funnel money to them whether or not they adapt, allowing a shitty business to remain viable.

And, it does not happen when private firms and consumers continue to funnel money to them as well. So I fail to see any relevance.

As to the OP's intended point, you need to ask the OP poster.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Yes they have an incentive to do something, but not every company does. So if a company doesn't figure out in the long term on how to provide it, it goes out of business.

Unless a government continues to funnel money to it, allowing it to remain in business despite not figuring it out.

Yes, but is the government still buying from Aramark knowing what they are serving and putting in the food?