Why can't the government (US) make money off of projects?

[Kanaric]

Went to the hoover dam and there was a discussion how it doesn't make a profit and breaks even, this is done intentionally since no government organization can profit. Why? I know some of the reasons such as competition but why can't a project like that which has none not profit?

Also groups like GM they used the government as a service, why could we not profit from their sales?

I understand the argument as to why but I don't agree with it. In a nation if corporate lobbyists im sure any project would be forced to compete fairly. Instead we are taxed? If the government can run a profitable business with the people as its defacto share holders how is this a bad thing?

Oversight, lobby, and votes are in place to check such an organization.

Im not really for or against something like this i just want to see your opinions or explanations as I don't agree with or get the default one.

[YukonTrooper]

Went to the hoover dam and there was a discussion how it doesn't make a profit and breaks even, this is done intentionally since no government organization can profit. Why? I know some of the reasons such as competition but why can't a project like that which has none not profit?

To keep prices subsidized for the people that use the power? I'm just guessing here.

Also groups like GM they used the government as a service, why could we not profit from their sales?

You used the term "corporate lobbyists", which should answer your question. The corporate and financial megaliths take, they don't give. Case in point: the banks who took your money and didn't lend it out as promised, instead giving their top employees million dollar bonuses.

[Kanaric]

You used the term "corporate lobbyists", which should answer your question. The corporate and financial megaliths take, they don't give. Case in point: the banks who took your money and didn't lend it out as promised, instead giving their top employees million dollar bonuses.

This is true, your point, but there are already established government corporations and local state side groups like ComEd in Illinois. I understand your case about GM though, it makes sense. I was just wondering if there was any philosophical or economic reasoning behind this but if its just lobbyists that not only makes sense but is probably the case.

To keep prices subsidized for the people that use the power? I'm just guessing here.

Sure I agree with this but if the dam makes a profit and gives money to the state and fed it surely would be able to decrease taxes by a certain percentage at least in the region. The fact that this is a direct way to tax based on the use of something would be harder to get out of than income tax for example and less annoying to the populace than taxes in the forum of upping fines.

I guess I should have mentioned that, I think these groups should be making money rather than the government trying to find ways to hide taxes on items and fines as they typically do. It would also be more of a steady income as well as i'm sure power usage only goes up yearly where taxes is based on the economy. At least in the case here of Hoover Dam and similar companies such as ComEd.

[Condottiere 40K]

Fear of being cast as a programme of creeping socialism that will eventually nationalize all major industries.

There are pros and cons, especially reagrding areas where the free market would be a more efficient and cheaper provider; there's a balance there somewhere, and it depends on the national character to find a mixture they are comfortable with.

[Thorn777]

define "making money"...it actually creates surplus all over, its just not "profit".

[Mr. Scott]

Well, its because certain industries have a societal benefit that only is highly beneficial when its cheap. A prime example is higher education.

The UC system gives anyone good enough cheap, wonderful access to some of the top universities in the world. "Politics" and "connections" are completely non-existent in the system and so it acts as a function to which even the poorest kids can move up in society. The benefit from this greater class fluidity and more educated population is enormous and creates an enormous level of wealth in the economy as a whole, that far outweigh the costs with the UC system itself.

That benefit would not be there if the government needed to take in more money in the UC system, than it gives out. Indirectly, by having the UC system boost the power of our economy, the government will eventually gets its "profit" via taxes on a stronger tax base.

[Condottiere 40K]

Certain utilities like infrastructure that affects the economy in general, like water, electricity and transport.

[Justice and Mercy]

Simply because there's no reason for them to.

If those projects were economically profitable to begin with there would be no reason for the government to step in unless precisely to keep them from being a business (roads and military).

I've always said, there is NO excuse for government spending as a means to economic ends. The government is not a good candidate for directing resources economically. I too support certain government services, but I understand that they're uneconomical.

[YuriVII]

State capitalism. Novel concept. If the government was to make a company and run it as a for-profit organization it could be used to do two things: lower taxes by taking in actual trade as revenue instead of people hard-earned money. Problem is the regulated becomes the regulators (not too much different than the status quo) and private ownership of industries is threatened.

Also if company goes into red than the temptation to cushion losses with public funds would always be there. Hell no company could compete with a company who is funded by you and if it fails will be bailed out by you. So I can see some advantages but I also see a slippery slope.

I dont know, look at US Postal Service. That is a for-profit company run by the government. Apparently its going bankrupt.

[Condottiere 40K]

You have to adapt to changing conditions, whether social or technology.

If there was a machine that could create enough water for a household by squeezing moisture out of the air, there's no need to maintain a water utility. That's too drastic, the Post Office should have adapted it's services in line with consumer's current communications habits and delivery expectations.

[Tiwaz]

You have to adapt to changing conditions, whether social or technology.

If there was a machine that could create enough water for a household by squeezing moisture out of the air, there's no need to maintain a water utility. That's too drastic, the Post Office should have adapted it's services in line with consumer's current communications habits and delivery expectations.

Problem tends to be that postal services should have certain minimum level of service provided, even to remote regions.

Here postal services try to become "profitable". Result is that amount of postal offices is in constant decline, with "smart post" and entrepreneur run postal offices (stores having postal service desk and staff trained to do those duties) appearing. Which is less efficient as those post offices have staff who also have to work in the store, meaning there is often queues building up.

This is because providing service everywhere is very expensive, but everyone has to be reached by mail. And every county must have one post owned service point (rest can be corner "posts" in stores). It would be better if it was not made business but instead simple service provided by state to population. Even at loss.

[Mr. Scott]

In my entire life, I have only sent out probably two letters.

[Thorn777]

In my entire life, I have only sent out probably two letters.

Wait till you get older.

[Mr. Scott]

Wait till you get older.

Based on the current trend, its likely to even lessen. I did my entire college app process (15 universities), with only sending one letter.

[Tiwaz]

In my entire life, I have only sent out probably two letters.

How much mail you have received then? I get mail deliveries all the time.

[Condottiere 40K]

Then if the Post is to be an actual government service, it would fall as part of the Government's duty to facilitate commerce.

[Savoyard]

Because Turtle Tunnels don't seem to generate toll revenue.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Sometimes a deficit on one productive unit actually create a huge surplus in others. Like trains, trains ain't meant to profit and they usually lose money, but are far better at transporting and delivering goods and materials than the other ''ground option'' trucks.