Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: runnerpaul@*****.com runnerpaul@*****.com
Subject: Uncle Sam, Pimp. [was: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?]
Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 20:23:23 -0400 (EDT)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 07:49 PM 5/5/1999 -0400, Ereskanti@***.com wrote:
>> The ultimate irony is that the
>> government owned the Mustang Ranch (a famous Brothel) in Vegas for

>> several years. The IRS Siezed it for tax evasion and then operated

>it
>> until they made enough profit to recover the missing taxes and
>then sold
>> it.
>
>Steve, I had completely forgotten about this one too. Thanks for the

>memories of that previous read... ;)
>

I'd just like to nitpick something here. Prostitution _IS_ illegal
within Las Vegas' city limits, by local ordinance. It's only when you
get outside Vegas does it become legal. The state of Nevada leaves the
issue up to local municipalities, and while most allow it, Las Vegas
doesn't.

Anyway, the Mustang Ranch might have been near Vegas, but it wasn't
inside the city proper. :)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2

iQCVAwUBNzDfTaPbvUVI86rNAQFnDQP/WS15c0vtCinw++3ad3YwweoiaLsHtta9
hXgpWb53G0i6/JizRxKDwIPrTPxvkgCrFIXO3QbozW5GLNVBAkkXYEhwC+Oy4SmC
VYJkFcYKMBf5MAgI54RvBTvcHAvj0hs2b7QJLecJWRBKvBuJS2hy0DiuOaG6EI5n
89oza5ZNM4s!5X
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
-- Paul Gettle, #970 of 1000 (RunnerPaul@*****.com)
PGP Fingerprint, Key ID:0x48F3AACD (RSA 1024, created 98/06/26)
C260 94B3 6722 6A25 63F8 0690 9EA2 3344

---------------------------------------------------
Get free personalized email at http://www.iname.com
Message no. 2
From: Starrngr@***.com Starrngr@***.com
Subject: Uncle Sam, Pimp. [was: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?]
Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 02:00:34 EDT
In a message dated 5/5/99 5:24:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
runnerpaul@*****.com writes:

>
> I'd just like to nitpick something here. Prostitution _IS_ illegal
> within Las Vegas' city limits, by local ordinance. It's only when you
> get outside Vegas does it become legal. The state of Nevada leaves the
> issue up to local municipalities, and while most allow it, Las Vegas
> doesn't.
>
> Anyway, the Mustang Ranch might have been near Vegas, but it wasn't
> inside the city proper. :)

This is also not totaly correct. 1) the mustag ranch is outside of RENO. 2)
Nevada state law states that prostitution is illegal in municipalities OVER a
certan population (I think its a thousand or so). I don't remember if they
actually can vote to make it illegal in thier town, but it doesnt surprise me
if they can.

At any rate, I'm not surprised they decided to sell it. Who wouldnt like the
chance to screw the government, so to speak?
Message no. 3
From: Robert Watkins robert.watkins@******.com
Subject: Uncle Sam, Pimp. [was: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?]
Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 16:12:52 +1000
Starrngr writes:
> At any rate, I'm not surprised they decided to sell it. Who
> wouldnt like the
> chance to screw the government, so to speak?

They should have kept it then. Business would have been great.

(Personally, I've never understood why governments feel they have to
privatise things... if it can be run at a profit by a corp, it should be
able to run cheaper by the government than the rate the corp charges the
government)

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 4
From: runnerpaul@*****.com runnerpaul@*****.com
Subject: Uncle Sam, Pimp. [was: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?]
Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 09:08:27 -0400 (EDT)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 02:00 AM 5/6/1999 -0400, Starrngr@***.com wrote:
>> Anyway, the Mustang Ranch might have been near Vegas, but it
>wasn't
>> inside the city proper. :)
>
>This is also not totaly correct. 1) the mustag ranch is outside of
>RENO.

I only said that the place _might_ have been near Vegas. :) All I
knew is that it _wasn't_ "in Vegas", as the first poster suggested,
but since I didn't know where it actually was, I was prepared to give
the benefit of the doubt.

And anyway, I was mostly posting because I wanted to change the
subject line drastically. :) (Topic Drift is FUN!)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2

iQCVAwUBNzGTN6PbvUVI86rNAQGKNwQAtmzkINPuje6eOqrVzo1sV/VZaUG8kTa7
sLg3XGZJxYOCBOlh7xVdg5hBf0+zNn3j1vGGTcw5dILENr97xbfvMHKhT1LNWcST
da5Q9fPbHkXcnIiycyF2Pr+G6ioeq2PXsuLDqECXn7fcGAZ0mTI0F1UeUBmn5kR7
f4qncPhQpUw=WiZQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
-- Paul Gettle, #970 of 1000 (RunnerPaul@*****.com)
PGP Fingerprint, Key ID:0x48F3AACD (RSA 1024, created 98/06/26)
C260 94B3 6722 6A25 63F8 0690 9EA2 3344

---------------------------------------------------
Get free personalized email at http://www.iname.com
Message no. 5
From: runnerpaul@*****.com runnerpaul@*****.com
Subject: Uncle Sam, Pimp. [was: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?]
Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 09:08:25 -0400 (EDT)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 02:00 AM 5/6/1999 -0400, Starrngr@***.com wrote:
>> Anyway, the Mustang Ranch might have been near Vegas, but it
>wasn't
>> inside the city proper. :)
>
>This is also not totaly correct. 1) the mustag ranch is outside of
>RENO.

I only said that the place _might_ have been near Vegas. :) All I
knew is that it _wasn't_ "in Vegas", as the first poster suggested,
but since I didn't know where it actually was, I was prepared to give
the benefit of the doubt.

And anyway, I was mostly posting because I wanted to change the
subject line drastically. :) (Topic Drift is FUN!)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2

iQCVAwUBNzGTN6PbvUVI86rNAQGKNwQAtmzkINPuje6eOqrVzo1sV/VZaUG8kTa7
sLg3XGZJxYOCBOlh7xVdg5hBf0+zNn3j1vGGTcw5dILENr97xbfvMHKhT1LNWcST
da5Q9fPbHkXcnIiycyF2Pr+G6ioeq2PXsuLDqECXn7fcGAZ0mTI0F1UeUBmn5kR7
f4qncPhQpUw=WiZQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


---------------------------------------------------
Get free personalized email at http://www.iname.com
Message no. 6
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: Uncle Sam, Pimp. [was: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?]
Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 10:58:45 -0400 (EDT)
On Thu, 6 May 1999, Robert Watkins wrote:

> (Personally, I've never understood why governments feel they have to
> privatise things... if it can be run at a profit by a corp, it should be
> able to run cheaper by the government than the rate the corp charges the
> government)

One word, my friend. "Bureaucracy." The government can't do
anything without building a huge bureaucracy to run it. Then there's the
bureaucracy associated with oversight, funding, etc. And who makes the
decisions? Perhaps a Senate subcommittee is in order...
By the time you pay the salaries and benefits of all the
functionaries directly and peripherally involved with it, you typically
end up losing money. Such is the way of government.

Marc
Message no. 7
From: Robert Watkins robert.watkins@******.com
Subject: Uncle Sam, Pimp. [was: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?]
Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 09:31:04 +1000
Marc Renouf writes:
> One word, my friend. "Bureaucracy." The government can't do
> anything without building a huge bureaucracy to run it. Then there's the
> bureaucracy associated with oversight, funding, etc. And who makes the
> decisions? Perhaps a Senate subcommittee is in order...
> By the time you pay the salaries and benefits of all the
> functionaries directly and peripherally involved with it, you typically
> end up losing money. Such is the way of government.

I've worked for government and for a mid-size corp. IMHO, the government has
less overhead per-capita in bureaucratic weight. Larger corps can be worse
still.

In my government role, there were two ranks below me (6 levels of positions,
but only 2 ranks), and 6 above me. 9 in total. In my corporate role, there's
2 ranks sort of to the side of me, and a grand total of 10 above me, several
with their own adjacent ranks. The reporting structure is a serious
nightmare. There's only just over a thousand people working for this
company, but if I had a document to get to the CEO, it would pass through 12
sets of hands before it got there. When I was in the government, it would
have taken 5 at most.

And none of that changes the fundamental question. If a corp can run a
business/service at a profit, and the government can't, why do people put up
with: a) The increased charges/reduced services the corp will offer, to make
it profitable; b) The extra waste of overhead that governments supposedly
put in?

IMHO, any government that is looking to privatise government businesses and
operations are either:
a) incompetent, 'cause they can't run it themselves;
b) incompetent, 'cause they need a quick injection of cash;
c) incompetent, 'cause they can't do the maths and see that the money
brought in by the sale would have been made up in about 4 or 5 years through
normal business (the Australian government's sale of Telstra comes to
mind...); OR
d) idealistic, 'cause they want to get the government out of a private
business that is competing with others, and they don't want to put the other
businesses at a disadvantage (again, the Telstra sale comes to mind, but
there were other fairer ways to do it... but this isn't the place to rant
about that)

Whenever you see governments privatising INFRASTRUCTURE, you know that
option a is the answer. Well, one of them, anyway. The true answer is
usually a combination of a, b, c, and sometimes a smattering of d.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 8
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: Uncle Sam, Pimp. [was: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?]
Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 12:06:01 -0400 (EDT)
On Fri, 7 May 1999, Robert Watkins wrote:

> I've worked for government and for a mid-size corp. IMHO, the government has
> less overhead per-capita in bureaucratic weight. Larger corps can be worse
> still.

While I will agree that this *can* be the case, I'm not
necessarily sure that it's always the case, or even usually the case. A
lot depends on the structure and purpose of the corporation. Some
organizations seem to attract and preserve deadwood. In recenty years,
however, there has been some serious slashing going on, as corporations do
more cost/profit analyses and discover that they have more Human Resources
functionaries than productive employees or whatever.

> There's only just over a thousand people working for this company, but
> if I had a document to get to the CEO, it would pass through 12 sets of
> hands before it got there. When I was in the government, it would have
> taken 5 at most.

I work for a company of around 700. I started 3 years ago. I am
next-to-low man on the totem pole in my "chain of command." If I
want to give something to the CEO, it passes through 2 sets of hands
before landing on his desk. I'm not saying that more people won't see it
if it falls in their bailiwick, just that they won't necessarily *need* to
see it. In fact, if they see it at all, it's probably because the CEO
passed it back down the appropriate channels.

> And none of that changes the fundamental question. If a corp can run a
> business/service at a profit, and the government can't, why do people put up
> with: a) The increased charges/reduced services the corp will offer, to make
> it profitable; b) The extra waste of overhead that governments supposedly
> put in?

The simple answer is because the government is doing things

> IMHO, any government that is looking to privatise government businesses and
> operations are either:
> a) incompetent, 'cause they can't run it themselves;

[SNIP]

> Whenever you see governments privatising INFRASTRUCTURE, you know that
> option a is the answer. Well, one of them, anyway. The true answer is
> usually a combination of a, b, c, and sometimes a smattering of d.

Like the privatization of the US Postal Service a few years ago?
:)

Marc

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Uncle Sam, Pimp. [was: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?], you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!