Preppers Were Right?

[mitsho]

Of course prepping is a good thing. It however should be done on a national level, not the individual one. And we already do that. Our supply chains are robust, Corona has just lead to empty shelves because people are stupid, not for a lack of food and material. And again, water, electricity and communication are so vital, you need the state for that.

 

[Hrothbern]

Of course prepping is a good thing. It however should be done on a national level, not the individual one. And we already do that. Our supply chains are robust, Corona has just lead to empty shelves because people are stupid, not for a lack of food and material. And again, water, electricity and communication are so vital, you need the state for that.

Would that not depend on where you live and how you are ?

If you do not trust, or prefer to do not want to trust the national State... or reckon with profiteering pricing by companies....
(specific) trust comes after a track record of (specific) reliability... if you want to see that

And if it is a national sport to feel better (off) than your competitors... other citizens... by prepping better...

 

[mitsho]

Sure, but I feel the best prepping you could then do in such a situation is to make your current state better.

I just wanted to post the anti-thesis to this thread as well.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Especially since preppers are certainly going to be the ones laughing when civilization does eventually collapse and they are sitting pretty while millions of the unprepared who so mercilessly mock them now starve to death.

I can see the glee in your eyes from here.

I'm not sure preppers will be "sitting pretty" when climate change hits and we lose access to food/fresh water/electricity. Prepping is just roleplay. You can't prepare for a massive flood swallowing your island or the complete desertification of your lands.

the only way to "prep" for that is to be rich and own multiple estates. and an aeroplane. those are the only people who will be looking pretty. it has always been this way. they're also the people likely to make a dime on everyone elses misfortune.

They would also likely become the new political elite in any attempt to rebuild society due to the fact that they would be the ones in control of all the vital resources as well as all the guns (at least in the US).

ah, so this is where this is going. another "commodore goes power fantasy" episode.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

No you don't. The state doesn't provide any of those things here in the US. They may regulate those industries, but all of those are services and the infrastructure for them are provided by private corporations.

Which is why you get horror stories like that town with lead in their water. Like it or not it's better for the state to control these things as the state is responsible to its voters as opposed to private industry which is only responsible to lawyers and inspectors. After all, of the two only one tends to get out the torches and pitchforks when screwed and do so with a frighting speed and regularity.

 

[Synobun]

Which is why you get horror stories like that town with lead in their water.

Well... no. Lead piping used to be the standard across all of the West.

I don't disagree with you that the state should regulate and control utilities, since this is ultimately one of the prime purposes of "the state," but this specifically isn't a corporate, private interest issue. The issue would still exist with full state ownership. Lead pipes have been used for millennia and phasing them out has only been a thing since the 1930s... with states like the UK and US not pushing for replacement until the 80s and 90s. There's a huge cost involved with replacing lead pipes, and many jurisdictions split utility equipment ownership between the provider and the property owner.

In other words, it's such an ass ache that all parties involved are averse to wholesale replacement. Convincing everyone of the health benefits is challenging; they might understand the theory and vague idea of it but they don't recognize its direct implications on their health and the health of their children. But even with the inconvenience and cost, I'm not sure that there are any countries remaining with lead piping making up more than ~40% of all pipes, and there are many in the EU who have reached <10%. That's not terrible for what has largely been a 30- to 40-year process for many countries.

They could have done better. They should have done better. But within the confines of reality and the basis of our society, phasing out lead piping has been a steady process. There are outliers like Flint and the response should have been significantly better than it was, but I'm not sure it would have been if water utility was fully state controlled. (Of course, you could make the argument that many governments try to emulate corporations.)

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Well... no. Lead piping used to be the standard across all of the West

I am not talking about lead pipes. I am talking about that one case a couple years back where the private run utility company allowed idiotic levels of lead buildup to occur in the pipes to the point things became seriously toxic. There was simply not enough oversight thanks to the fact that the government->law->inspector->lawyer->company loop failed due to being slow, cumbersome and generally useless like it always is.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Nope. The state is the epitomy of inefficiency. I can't think of one example in which the state was able to do a better job of providing a service than a private corporation in my lifetime. Even the government recognizes this which is why they contract all that stuff out to corporations in the first place.

The goal of a private company is to increase profits. The goal of a public utility is to provide a vital service to the public at reasonable costs.

Public utilities should not be motivated by profits. Otherwise you end up with a case of like what happens with Emera/N.S. Power, where there's constant outages and constant rate increases.

 

[Hrothbern]

Nope. The state is the epitomy of inefficiency. I can't think of one example in which the state was able to do a better job of providing a service than a private corporation in my lifetime. Even the government recognizes this which is why they contract all that stuff out to corporations in the first place.

In the US you can be right, I have no intimate info.

But there are heaps of examples in my country where it works perfectly fine.
Important is whether the government interferes really in the management (tricky and unstable) or takes more the role of owners with non-political civil servants in the role of (most of) the non-executives in a corporate.

One of the advantages is a better balance between short term and long term thinking and actions.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Nope. The state is the epitomy of inefficiency. I can't think of one example in which the state was able to do a better job of providing a service than a private corporation in my lifetime. Even the government recognizes this which is why they contract all that stuff out to corporations in the first place.

Different things have different requirements.

Non essential luxury goods like cable television, candy or automobiles are all things you can absolutely do without. Therefore you willingly allow for a system where accountability and availability might suffer in exchange for the higher degree of quality competition provides.

When it comes to utilities like water, electricity, healthcare etc. however the opposite is true. You can't live without those things. Thus the quality aspect of them is very much binary. Either your drinking water is pure or it isn't. Your electricity either works or it does not. etc. And in that scenario what you want is a system geared toward maximum accountability and availability at the expense of everything else.

Thus luxury goods are best served by market capitalism whilst utilities are best served by public monopolies.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The goal of a private company is to increase profits. The goal of a public utility is to provide a vital service to the public at reasonable costs.

It sounds great and all, but historical trends show that neither governments nor private industry are especially vigilant against these kinds of errors. Government tends to be a more wasteful with resources since they don't have the same profit incentive, but this does not consistently mean any significant improvement in quality of product/service.

If you want to get into microeconomics of it, the government is still a firm and anything it tries to manage/oversee is bound by mostly the same limitations as private firms. Even w/o bad intentions, it's going to struggle for similar reasons post-antitrust conglomerate setups weren't ideal. It can't be a true expert in medicine, industry-specific legal documentation, energy, retail, etc all at once so it winds up utilizing private capabilities at local scales regardless.

I think the best we can do is keep government out of direct management of industry, but try to have a balance of regulation that isn't too onerous/ridiculous/cost-prohibitive while also being sufficiently vigorous to prevent the worst abuses. Easier said than done, but most attempted alternatives fare worse.

 

[Kaitzilla]

A cellar full of tinned food is just delaying the inevitable.
If someone buys a smallholding in as remote an area as possible and sets about making themselves as self-sufficient as possible then they are serious.
Otherwise prepping is just a hobby.

Heh, taking my next breath is just delaying the inevitable.

Has the world ever shut down like this before?
Feels so weird.

 

[Moriarte]

First thing the apocalypse liberation army is going to do is loot the preppers for food and weapons, while hanging them on trees (for fun!) in the process.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

It sounds great and all, but historical trends show that neither governments nor private industry are especially vigilant against these kinds of errors.

It's not that I trust the government not to screw up. I just trust them to be more responsive to us when we threaten them with violence unless they fix it.

TLDR if a private company screws up you are stuck suing them. That takes time and money you don't have. And even if you win which if not a given at best you'll be getting too little too late. On the other hand when your government screws up you light your torches and sharpen your pitchforks and march on the town hall and they literally have no legal recourse than to give you what you want or else.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Except that's not how it has historically worked out. You light the torches and the government loads the machineguns.

I was being hyperbolical and you know it. Point is mass protests and general public displays of discontent provide results much faster and with greater effectiveness than trying to sue big capital.

 

[Zardnaar]

So was I. My point being the government is more than capable of ignoring the demands of the people and still hold on to their power.

Mass protest doesn't really work anymore.

Only protest that really matters is the ballot box.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

So was I. My point being the government is more than capable of ignoring the demands of the people and still hold on to their power.

I guess we live in very different societies than. Must be regional I guess.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Mass protest doesn't really work anymore.

Only protest that really matters is the ballot box.

And sometimes that doesn't matter much

 

[Zardnaar]

And sometimes that doesn't matter much

That to.

We had a PM in the 90s panic over protests.

Ministers told him to ignore them. They did and won.

Protest marches here are kinda rare. It's mostly to blow off steam IMHO.

 

[Zardnaar]

Plus, people have short memories. They may be super angry over an issue for a bit, but after a month or so they forget all about it and go back to their daily routine. That's a big reason why so many political movements end up failing.

Yeah you can't mobilise outrage long term.