Harry wrote: > Only problem was that the fire service that allowed the house to burn was a > government service. > The city asked residents to pay $75 fee in addition to taxes.
If public entities try to "privatize" their services (New Public Management etc.), the outcome is often even worse than if a private company would perform the services. So this case is still a case against privatizing public services. A truly public service (which also doesn't need a per-capita fee, which is just a dumb trick to raise taxes without raising taxes!) would _never_ let a house burn down -- in Europe, anyway. Remember that laisser-faire is the motto of the privatizers, not that of their opponents... > Private fire services appear to work and they are cheaper. Competition in this (non-)business doesn't make sense, i.a. because often _3rd parties_ call the firemen, not the owner of the burning building. They would often call the "wrong" company, which then would first have to find out which competing fire service company the owner has chosen as his provider, and then they would have to call their competitor to send him to the building. (Even if a single number like 911 remains, they would have to find out which local provider is the right one.) This would waste precious time while the building is burning. Worse, what if the chosen provider is further away from the fire than other competitors? This would waste even more time while the building is burning. If there is a state monopoly on fire services, always the nearest fire station will respond to a fire, and immediately from the first call to the one number. And real competition inherently MUST cost more, because it would mean that there are at least 2-3 competing fire services in EVERY location, each one completely equipped with all firefighting gear and vehicles (very expensive) and 24/7 readiness (personnel sitting around in the firestation), but all these investments for a non-expandable "market" (or do you want them to send pyromaniacs around to increase business? The one competitor who sends the most pyromaniacs to his customers, will win!). Plus the costs of advertising, which wouldn't exist in a state monopoly. So it all comes down to the real purpose of privatizing "non-profitable" public services: Making fat-cats richer, and externalizing costs! (Else, it would be a contradiction in terms: if it can be turned profitable, then the state itself could continue to provide it!) Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
