Why can’t you sell a territory or a national Park? I am curious. Is there even a “estimate” on the selling value of a State or territory? In other words, how much could the United States fetch for selling, say, Guam to the Kingdom of the Netherlands?
The problem is that most of these assets fall into two categories: relatively worthless, in which case who would want to buy them? Or valuable, in which case why would the government want to sell them?
So who’s going to buy NASA? It’s a research organization that’s not making any money. Why would a private investor want to buy it?
And why would we want to sell the Post Office? It’s earning income and if we sold it we’d lose that income and be poorer then when we started.
Selling a territory, or leasing a state is the apocalypse. No president could survive it, No Congress would authorize it. No Supreme Court would approve it. It’s comic book material. History runs only one way. Things become part of the U.S. They never go the other way.
One thing I absolutely guarantee is that when the bill passes the roof won’t be on fire and the dollar won’t collapse. You could more profitably worry about the asteroid that may hit us in 2036 than in that scenario. Nobody is going to run out and vivisect the U.S. based on that nonsense. We can all go to bed now. Crisis is over.
Why not? You have the world’s best scientists at your disposal. Tell them to make useful things and be a raging bull about it.
We could sell our nuclear arsenal, that would fetch a pretty penny on the black market.
Well, we could…
The Post Office earns income? That’s news to me. Why don’t we take away the government-imposed monopoly on daily mailbox delivery and see what happens? Maybe there are other business models that make more sense, and would charge far less than 42 cents per stamp. Why do you assume the current model is the most effective and efficient?
How do you know nobody doesn’t want to buy NASA and its assets? Why don’t we give it a shot and find out?
If they are valuable, then its even more reason to see what we could get for them. I own them. So do you. I might have an interest in getting something for what I supposedly ‘own’, so as to reduce the tax and debt burden on me and my children.
There are so many things wrong with your post, I’ll have to focus on just a few.
I don’t know whether the Post Office received a subsidy or not in the latest fiscal year. But I know it has, on many occasions. In any case, it’s somewhat irrelevant, since the gubmint has a legally-imposed monopoly on daily mailbox delivery for which it charges a non-negotiable fee that it dictates to the populace.
NASA does not ‘handle’ military satellites. It contracts with USAF Space Command to launch satellites. Once in orbit, military satellites are managed by USAF Space Command and/or some combination of the NRO.
And stating ‘The Interstate Highway System is not going to get sold’ and ‘You Will Never Deaccession the Smithsonian’ sort of defeats the purpose of the debate, doesn’t it? Proof by assertion, as they say. We won’t sell those assets because we will never sell those assets. That’s pretty airtight logic.
Until it starts running the other way.
(1) Any number of empires could have said that at a certain point in their history but they all fell later. I can’t see how the USA is going to be the exception. Everything indicates it is already on the way down.
(2) The USA already lost the Philippines and Cuba.
While this was meant as a joke, it raises another serious problem; to sell off a peice of territory you need someone to sell it to. And right now, given the global economy, who could buy a territory of sufficient value to matter?
Suppose the USA decided to sell a state to Canada, which is a pretty rich country, is an ally and so doesn’t create any significant security issues, and anyway it’s geographically convenient. Referenda are held, and the people of Maine vote to allow their state to be purchased by Canada. How much is Maine worth? Consider that seriously - it’s a LOT of money, and Maine is not a terribly populous state. I don’t know how you’d put a value on something like that, but there isn’t any price Canada would be able to pay that would make any dent in the USA’s budgetary problems. The state GDP is $41 billion, according to Wikipedia; Canada might be able to swing that but it’s five percent of the stimulus bill so who cares? Or do you value it at a multiplier of that, call it $410 billion? Canada can’t come up with that kind of cash.
The main reason the USA shouldn’t be selling off assets is just that selling off assets when the economy is down is usually crazy. The price will be hopelessly depressed.
I do not know why most people here are talking about the sale of sovereignty of part of the USA to another nation when it is much simpler to just sell federal land or other assets to individuals (corporations, whatever) and they remain under the sovereignty of the USA.
Of course, it would be a drop in the bucket and the American people would need to sell more and more to maintain the deficit and at the end of the story the US government has no many, no assets, no parks, no nothing. But the American people still exist and want more money.
So what are you saying? The Post Office is worthless so we should sell it for billions of dollars? Do you understand why we’re having problems with the logic here?
No, I’m saying the assets of the Post Office are definitely worth SOMETHING, to somebody. The assets include
- Hard assets: Buildings, trucks, airplanes, machinery
- Soft assets: The Brand, and the intellectual property of its employees
- Intangible assets: The monopoly imposed on first-class mailbox delivery
I would contend that those could be very, very valuable assets. But that value, and consequently our taxpayer dollars, are likely being destroyed due to horrible mismanagement.
So why not put some or all of them out to bid, and allow competition? Service will improve, costs will decrease, and the federal coffers will receive compensation for same, offsetting yours and my tax burden.
If you guys want to argue whether NASA or the USPS or anything else should be sold off, go to GD.
In the meantime I’ll remind you that we’re in GQ, that the OP asked whether it’s feasible to do so, and that I’m answering the OP question in GQ style.
The GQ answer is no. It is not feasible. Not now or at any time in the foreseeable future. If you want to posit a distant future in which the U.S. is being sold off for parts go to GD. Or science fiction.
Why not? Why can’t the Feds sell Yellowstone park to private investors tomorrow? It might not be politically feasable but it sure is legally feasable.
Fair enough. Here is my answer to the OP.
-
Nobody has any clue what the US government actually owns. There is no balance sheet anywhere. There is no Master Asset list anywhere. There is no comprehensive accounting for assets anywhere. The US governments’ accounting systems would qualify as criminal if they were applied to the private sector.
-
At worst, there is absolutely no incentive…and at best, there is miniscule incentive…for any government official, anywhere, to effectively manage his/her balance sheet and consider selling assets.
The only possible pressure - and that would only be miniscule pressure - would be if the ongoing operating expenses of managing the asset base bumped up against some sort of budget crunch. Which is sort of what happened with military base closures a while back.
Otherwise, why would a Federal Director of this-or-that even bother? What possible good would it do? It would shrink his/her empire, possibly call his own job into question, and be more hassle than its worth. It also would probably rile a bunch of special interests here or there who count on subsidized use of an asset for some reason or the other. It’s easier just to ask for more money.
- There is no direct, useful connection between the actual owners of the assets…meaning you and me…with their effective management and utilization. The people who manage direct the use of billion-plus-dollar assets have no direct accountability to the owners. The only (extremely tenous) link is through Congress. And if you think Congress is an effective manager of assets and financial resources, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.
I don’t think you understand the concept of a factual, GQ answer.
The “Feds” could make racial discrimination legal tomorrow. But that’s not going to happen either.
If it’s not politically feasible, it’s not feasible. That’s what feasible means.
IdahoMauleMan, I’m not going to debate you here. I do need to say that we are all special interests, including you with your call to sell things off. That’s as much of a special interest position as any other. Until you fully understand that you will never understand why the government acts as it does.
So this is another one of those “a government service is always wasteful but the same service run by a private corporation would always be efficient” arguments?
I challenge that. The 3 principles I mentioned above are very generic, and classic tenets, of governance and fiduciary responsibility. They are cited often in accounting and committee reports in both private and public entities seeking to diagnose malfeasance or other abrogation of duties.
I’ll restate them more succinctly:
- Missing or bad information.
- Lack of aligned incentives.
- Lack of accountability between management and owners.
It’s pretty basic stuff. What don’t you think is factual?
What if it is? Are you dismissing that out of hand, with a sigh and a shrug of the shoulders?
I never said government is always wasteful. Although given the management incentives and lack of accountability, it’s almost assuredly going to be worse than the private sector.
I never said private corporations are always efficient, although if they aren’t they will eventually succumb to the forces of the market and go bankrupt. Unless the government bails them out, that is.
The questions I would pose are:
- All the stuff we’re talking about, all these assets…are yours. And mine. How does that feel? Do you actually feel like you have any control over their use? Over how much they cost? Over how much they could be sold for? Are they really ‘yours’?
I say no. They aren’t. Because you have zero say in how they are used, unlike your own personal balance sheet. You make decisions every day regarding your own money about how much to save or spend, or whether to sell stuff in the garage on Ebay, or invest in the stock market or a local business. Do you have that say with the assets you supposedly ‘own’ via the US government?
If not, then they aren’t really yours, are they? They don’t really belong to you, do they? They belong to the person who has managerial control over their use. And that ain’t you or me. Sort of like Hugo Chavez saying he needs to nationalize the oil industry of Venezuela to ‘give it to the people’. Why don’t we ask ‘the people’ whether it feels like they own any of the means of oil production, or not.
-
Why don’t we find out whether it’s possible for the private sector to do better? Why do we enforce a government monopoly via rule of law? Maybe the gubmint could do better. Maybe it couldn’t. Myself, I’ll put my money on the latter. But why don’t we find out? What do you say? What have we got to lose? It seems like we have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
-
Don’t you want more control over your own money, and your own decisions? Why are you so willing to assume someone you’ve never met, who takes your money by force, and who gives you no options on quality, service or price, is operating in your best interest in the most efficient way possible? Wouldn’t you prefer to have that power for yourself?
[/off soapbox]