Maybe domestic terrorism but not international. Private prisons only make money when people are captured alive and locked up on US soil.
Here is a link to a segment form 2011 about private prisons being good investments - http://www.cnbc.com/id/44677873
I'll keep looking for last years episode.
> The Barrier Fund will concentrate its net assets in industries that have significant barriers to entry including the alcoholic beverages, tobacco, gaming and defense/aerospace industries.
http://www.openculture.com/2013/01/hannah_arendts_original_a...
I'd also argue it's something we need to actively work to engineer out of society and humanity.
Some schools have contracts with companies, the government, or even have legitimate patents.
Please note that private institution and for-profit institutions are not the same thing.
I think the exception comes when the government contracts a business to run a school. This is a very different arrangement and is prone to all of the horrors that come along with the government signing contracts for various services. Once the contract is in place, given how slow the government is to act, all one needs to do is comply with the contract enough to not lose it outright.
No, they aren't. The vast majority of private schools are non-profit corporations.
This is far more false than true. Most private schools are, in fact, not-for-profit. All of the house-hold private university names, except for University of Phoenix, are all not-for-profit. Harvard, Yale, etc. are all not-for-profit.
> They are generally regarded as the best education you can get for K-12 schooling
The only for profit K-12 schools I know of are basically web-based GED prep courses. Not exactly the "best education you can get", but it'll get you that McDonalds gig.
This isn't even true of not-for-profit private schools. There are plenty of public schools, e.g. in wealthy suburbs, that are far higher quality than your average Catholic private school, for example.
> actually, wait, isn't that the difference between a college and a university?
No, not at all. The only difference is that a university a) has multiple colleges and b) offers graduate degrees.
Colleges and universities can be private for-profit, private not-for-profit, or public.
> For profit schools pretty much kick ass
Sorry to burst your bubble, but in higher education, for-profit universities are usually bottom of the barrel in terms of both prestige and quality.
Many private schools are not profitable institutions by a long shot. They could use a little bit more profit motive sometimes.
Many private schools are either:
* some religious institution, like a catholic school
* some really old private school that has kept on going because it's where all the rich kids go to with a relatively large endowment.
* opening with a specific charter in mind, like a sudbury school
A) Working as a prison guard/admin (in which your job security/salary increase with incarceration);
B) Hiring released convicts (in which your model becomes increasingly profitable as more of the labor force is branded as less hireable due to greater incarceration);
C) Supplying goods to prisons (in which your specialization at the problems of delivery to prisons becomes more valuable with greater incarceration)
D) Lobbying for tough-on-crime laws due to the above incentives, as e.g. CO interest groups have done [1]
But running the prison itself? "That's too much, man!"
Frankly, the anti-private prison movement is, IMHO, very confused. Numerous groups financially profit from the prison system even when they're publicly run, and such prisons produce the same egregious incentives to encourage more incarceration. (See the three-strikes lobbying.)
It seems like a way to exploit anti-market, anti-profit bias to get the masses enraged at an enormous red herring -- which, by the way, is still only 6-16% [2].
[1] http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/the_undue_influen...
[2] https://www.aclu.org/issues/mass-incarceration/privatization...
We do need prisons. Some people are too dangerous to be allowed in society, and this will likely always be the case. So they must be guarded. (Technically, you're also guarding everyone else from them.) If it's immoral to work as a prison guard, it's also immoral to work as a policeman, or a firefighter, or a street cleaner - as your job becomes more secure when there are more criminals, or house fires, or litterers. Patent nonsense.
Hiring released convicts is also a good thing, in general - people go to prison, pay their debt to society, and come out. They need jobs, now.
And a person is going to need a bed sheet, a tooth brush, and toilet paper whether they're in prison or free.
D, I agree with, is wrong. And especially when done by the folks who do C.
The incentives are totally backwards. The state should be encouraging people to not be in prison, but instead we have monetary incentives in place for putting more people in prison and keeping them there.
There's really almost no scenario where I'm going to say "yeah I don't want to be in a position to make a downpayment on a house by analyzing and pursuing that profitable scenario"
whether long, short, no play, I'll take a look
how about you?
That's pretty significant - once you factor in their other revenue from private industry plus sales to foreign countries. So if you were going to categorize Boeing as anything in the context of the US gov alone, defense seems appropriate.
Additionally, even cutting that number in half (for the sake of accuracy) only reduces the total defense aerospace category by $4.6 million ($38m -> $33.4m total) which doesn't make those numbers drastically different, or that link much less persuasive.
The total revenue for for the entire Defense, Space, and Security portion of their business was only 30% of the company's total revenue, per their most recent 10-K filing. Further, reviewing previous filings it appears revenue for this segment has been flat for the past decade while revenue for their commercial aircraft operations has more than doubled.
Furthermore, I have no idea how that site arrived at the portion of revenue specifically from the DOD, as Defense, Space, and Security has a number of other government customers. All the sourcing information there is vague and generic.
> That's pretty significant - once you factor in their other revenue from private industry plus sales to foreign countries. So if you were going to categorize Boeing as anything in the context of the US gov alone, defense seems appropriate.
So, a company becomes a defense company just because most of it's government revenue comes from the DOD? It's not about "the context of the US gov alone", it's about the context of its government business with respect to its total business.
> Additionally, even cutting that number in half (for the sake of accuracy) only reduces the total defense aerospace category by $4.6 million ($38m -> $33.4m total) which doesn't make those numbers drastically different, or that link much less persuasive.
First, I would call cutting the total of the defense lobbying number by nearly 10% significant. Second, that is just an example. How many other Boeings are on that list? How much are they inflating that apparently simplistic analysis?
I only recently discovered this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tullock_paradox which I found very interesting.
that is so sad all the stats in the link you posted. hopefully with the rise of the internet and everyone becoming connected we can raise awareness and not let things like that happen anymore.
If the prison company was also in charge of sentencing people to prisons, I would get it. But as long as they merely implement the sentences the court system decides, what are the perverse incentives?
This sounds like an US metal band from '90s
> Does your mind frequently attempt to lessen the blow by noticing the blow does in fact exist but is small?
All the time? Otherwise you'd constantly be overwhelmed by small but ultimately inconsequential stresses.