You couldn't stop #4 from happening if you wanted to.

"Ultimately, there is no Truth"

Is that statement true? /philosophyfail

"This does look like a perfect excuse for already greedy airlines to try and get more money ..."

That's ridiculous. If the government forced them to stop flying and was wrong, then the airlines should be compensated. Otherwise, let them do what they want. Who's hurt more by a plane falling out of the sky, a company or a government. They know when to ground their own.

"Does that not also apply to employees in private organisations? If a machine breaks in a company owned by the worker, he fixes it. If the farm is owned by a hedge fund, he has no incentive to fix it. By your own logic, socialism is the better option. The farmer with a direct stake in his farm will run it better than a farmer who's merely an employee."

- The difference is, the decision makers in the organization--the executives--have a direct interest in the outcome of the business.

That is to say that the incentive structure is direct. Failure results in executives being removed from pay and position. Success means both reputation increase and financial reward.

Employees don't have a ton of incentive, true, they've traded share in success or failure for stability.

But the situation is far worse in a government run corporation. When you have politicians in the executive position you have people who've been elected or appointed there and whom do not share in the success or failure of the enterprise. They simply don't care either way, because success or failure has no impact on them.

For reference, might I suggest the fate of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both QUANGOs.

Yes, there is an answer for why communism in the farm fails.

Read the eminent economist and commentator Thomas Sowell's book, "Knowledge and Decisions" for an explanation of why socialism/communism failed in the farms, and why the same reasons it failed there cause it to fail or be continually less efficient than capitalism in every other enterprise.

If you think a publicly-owned anything can do better than a private organization, you have to explain how it will use coercion to do that, because public org's ability to coerce is the only difference between them. Both public and private companies are simply groups of people. People denigrate private orgs for having personal stakes in the outcome, but what turns out to be worse is the indifference of those with no stake in an enterprises outcome such as we find in communal/public organizations.

Ultimately, what Sowell's thesis comes down to is that communal organizations face a distortion of incentive structures. If something breaks on a farm that's owned by the farmer he fixes it. If a machine breaks on a communist farm he expects someone else to fix it--he doesn't own it. He neither profits by fixing it nor loses by not fixing. Thus, the owner has incentive to do what maximizes efficiency. The communal farmer does not, and could actually be punished for trying.

But farming doesn't have a lot of room for error. And if you're drastically inefficient enough people start starving. See China and Mao's "Great Leap Forward" (into starvation apparently) which resulted in the deaths of some 20+ million Chinese.

Hell yeah, unagi is my absolute favorite sushi of all time. If you've never had it, find a good sushi place and try it (emphasis on 'good'). And since it's actually served cooked, you wussies can't complain :P It's also served with an absolutely delicious teriyaki sauce.

Close behind that one: ama ebi ^_^