Is privatization of government services a good idea?

taxpayers having a say in from whom, at what cost, where, when, how and why they purchase those services - instead it's a bunch of contracts (no matter how they frame the contract procurement process it's all a fix, generally speaking, or can be if that's the desired outcome) for corporate buddies. and the fact that the government supplied those services implies a certain "necessity" that I don't think we can trust to the "free market".

way but its bad economically. It increases the transaction costs by adding in new layers of bureaucracy. That extra cost is passed on to the taxpayer.

Part of fiscal responsibility in government would be ending privatization of services. Government bureaucracy is no less efficient than corporate bureaucracy, in fact both are highly efficient. But adding them together creates a monstrosity. The leeches suckle the lifeblood of the citizenry with their contracts.

Basically corporations view the government as a source of free money and won't bat an eye at failing to deliver on government contracts, if they think they can get away with it through hook or crook. So privatization is a dead end.

However the idea of bringing competitiveness into government services is a good one. It can be done, however, without privatization: simply have the government run competing services that are performance monitored and played off against each other. Such could also serve as a way to provide redundancy in critical service areas.

Any enterprise that is "run like a business" often cuts employees to save money, and is dedicated to make a profit rather than provide a constant, dependable level of service.

A government agency is expected to be around for decades at least, doing pretty much the same things, providing services to taxpayers.

classes are cut, most of the faculty is part time and has no health insurance, but new buildings are always going up because that's how the board of trustees rewards their cronies.

Sometimes it sucks and sometimes it's just what is needed.
Cases in point
a) For the former, Haliburton contracts in Iraq
Privatization of the military etc.

b) For the latter, Privatization of Local Tax Collections.
(For when nobody dares to forclose on politically connected persons.)

It was the original form of widespread tax collection, in use throughout millenia in human society, known as tax farming. A king decreeing a tax, say on sale of a commodity like salt, would be in need of the money soon, and so in exchange for providing a sum approximating what it was hoped the tax would bring in over the next year, a merchant or group of merchants would receive the right to be the agents of collecting that tax over the coming year, and acting as accredited agents of the crown, would do so in the markets, generally collecting a good deal more than had been paid, through fair means or foul. It worked, from several angles, but was wildly innefficient and wasteful from the point of view of the social whole.

Any contracting out of collecting delinquent taxes to a private concern would work in a similar fashion, just as private debt collection services do. Such companies buy the debts, and cheaply, from the original creditor, and make their expenses and profit back by collecting more than they pay for the priviledge. The government would collect much less than it was entitled to, and certainly much less than it could collect by simply pursuing delinquents with the full array of legal tools at the disposal of the taxing agency.

Have seen an outside agency contract where the municipality would colect a guaranteed minimum in excess of what it had historically been collecting.

Where the municipal tax collectors office had been historically receiving around 90%. I private firm offered about 95% guaranteed, to be paid to the town on the due date. Plus a percentage of any additional taxes collected over a certain amount.

Of course when the private company started slapping leins on the property of tax delinquent Town Council members. Why they had to be given the heave ho. Which pretty much explains why the tax collectors were unable to collect from the people who effectivly controlled their paychecks.

In most instances, it simply trades one set of abuses for another. If forced to choose, my preference would be for a somewhat bloated and politicized municipal agency over a cut-price and jacked-profit private concern. The former will have corruptions involving ghost payrollers and loafing, the latter will have corruptions of large bribes and kick-backs to the highest levels of the local government. The monies spread around a well-paid City crew will bring more social benefit than the monies concentated into the accounts of a boss and some "efficiency" experts.

On the principle that there might be some limited exceptions -- say a canteen inside a government building -- but in general No.

I think the Magistrate put the basic points very well.

And how come nobody ever talks about privatizing government subsidies to large multinational corporations or fat tax write-offs for corrupt, overrich fatcats? Seems to me that if privatization is such a good idea, there'd be plenty of corporations stepping up to take over this non-vital government function.

keep your hand on your dough.....

That is about the only economy they practice: it saves one or two syllables over the honest form: "Loot the public treasury."

"The louder he spoke of his honor, the quicker we counted our spoons."

and it is right to the point.

Accompanied by Socialization of Losses.

is going to steal something that the rest of us have already paid for and fuck it up.

Stable, good paying jobs vs.

Temp or contract workers making a fraction of the above, with the remainder stuffed into corporate crony pockets.

P.S. (The total sum of the latter is often greater than the former)
Don't forget the taxpayer funded services for the latter, due to their low incomes.

It's a good question, but not one that's easy to answer. It's kind of like asking if rain is a good thing. A normal amount of rainfall occasionally is necessary and good. But too much rain can become depressing and annoying and -- at worst -- the cause for disaster.

In short, I think it's a bad idea to try to REPLACE government service with corporate contracts. But there are instances where government can work with the private sector for a result that is win-win.

Government can work in positive public-private partnerships. In essence, FDR recognized that in WW2 by mobilizing industry to become part of the war effort.

However, the mania for privitization has gone way too far since 1980. That's led to a host of problems, and stripped government in favor of privite interests.

The government is wasteful, inefficient and has little to no motivation to deliver good service.

:eyes:

Government under Democrats has done a much better job of providing for the general welfare than Enron-loving Republican "let big business do whatever the hell it wants and screw the little guy" approach.

citizens. Nonwaste=profit.

Corporations are inefficient in the same way as government because they are both bureaucratic machines. But then the paradox is, it is this machine that makes them ultra-efficient in the distribution of jobs, goods, and services. Without them nothing would get done.

As for getting good services; McDonalds? Wal Mart? or any Consulting firm providing a service are just as wasteful in their provision of arbitrary smiles.

Schools that have been taken over by private corporations have not done a good job at educating our kids. There are many institutions (schools being among them) that definitely do better without being run by for-profit entities.

Also, it's amusing that when Bushco redirects billions of dollars toward their billionaire buddies, that's NOT wasteful according to these anti-government types.

school, which makes their status as part of the school system uncertain. The company's role is to act as consultant. Basically the school system is paying this company to provide redundant information to teachers. They come in with a very narrow curriculum model and say teach. They then engage in unending teacher assessments. They basically just double the cost of educating the kids and provide nothing new to the process. The school is ending their affiliation with the company next year because they've realized this.

Bushco shouldn't even be given the oppurtunity to "redirect billions of dollars toward their billionaire buddies". THAT is wasteful. If the money stayed in the peoples pockets, WE could direct the money to where it needed to go better than any government institution.

... with a big, fat, juicy gov't contract to provide those services WOULD be motivated to deliver good service? In my experience, that has NEVER been true. Conversely, the vast majority of civil servants I have known in my life were highly motivated by the fact that they are working for the people of the United States and not just to enrich some fat cat.

In fact, their pride in civil service almost exactly parallels the pride in military service. And I feel the same disgust for anyone attacking either form of service to the American public.

the problem is that private enterprise gets there big fat NO BID contracts from government and they don't have to impress the people who use the service with quality, they only have to impress the middleman with bribery etc.

When we give contracts to private industry the meme is that competition will lower costs but just the opposite happens. Take Halliburton for example. No bid contract and what ever they charge we pay. The military use to do much of what Halliburton is doing at much less the cost to the tax payer.

Privatizing government services is the repub way if enriching their supporters. Repubs are hypocrites when it comes to this. They lower taxes on corporations then give them access to the federal treasury while the working class pays for it all.

The better system is to tax everyone and let the government provide the services hiring Americans to do the work. Actually I think that government should compete with private industry such as in alternative energy development. I would like to see the government build fuel efficient cars that were affordable thus forcing the industry to do the same. I would like to see the government build affordable housing thus forcing industry to do the same.

The government should take care of all it's people not just the wealthy. Don't ever let a right winger tell you that government shoud not be in the business of providing entitlements. Just look at who got the trillions of dollars of spending over the last 5 years. Social services were cut while payments to repub contributors became enormous. Repuke use ideology as an opiate for the faithful while they rob the treasury.

Each case must be evaluated individually.

BTW you are a Commie for even asking.

;-)

I voted no cause in the vast majority of the cases, the gov't does a better job than some company with fat ole gov't contract. But there are circumstances where it makes more sense to privatize.

Of course, having said you are right on that, however, does not change the fact that you are still a facist for saying it.

:)

:argh:

Look around you, there are excellent examples of privatization destroying government services...the military, the medical system, managed care, water privatization, utilities privitization, etc. The costs skyrocket and service plummets.