Thanks Arthur and Ross, The world seems reasonable again. I thought that I was the only one who thought this way. Deregulation has been a nightmare for me and my business. It seems the world has been taken over by those who have no inner motivation to do anything. If they don't have enemies or competitors then they are not stimulated to think, write or live. I see all of these Media folks who are excited and even happy now that there is a war to cover. Others have to have enemies or competitors in order for the market to work for them. They can't even imagine a market that isn't wasteful. It isn't just the right wing either. Geraldo Rivera the liberal talk show host/lawyer is throughly enjoying his late middle age as he becomes a "War Correspondant" for the most right wing network in America. I can imagine Murdock being delighted getting him off the air and in front of the guns. It used to be the Federal and State governments that were infuriating in their bureacracy, but there were only two of them and they were perfect to complain about. Today, with telephone, health and transporation companies being as large as countries, I am surrounded by Governments. Private Governments whose employees are MORE enfuriating then civil servants ever were. At least I could vote a politician out. Try voting out a telephone company that just "slammed" you. You can refuse to buy certain products but the complicated electronic and virtual products use complexity as a way of tricking you by making it non-productive to spend the time to catch where they cheat you. This constitutes a private tax from the companies that you must maintain a consistant service through.
REH ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ross James Swanston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 1:47 AM Subject: Privatizing the Public: Whose agenda?: At What Cost? > "Privatizing the Public: Whose Agenda? At What Cost? > > Away back in the early 1980s when I first went to university we had as > required reading a text titled "In The Public Interest". It was assumed > that we knew what the 'public interest' was. Governments placed great > store in representing the interests of the "ordinary bloke" and acting for > the 'common good'. Indeed, to act in the public interest was the pinnacle > of political achievement. > > Public utilities such as Health, Education, Power generation, and > presumably local affairs were organised around the 'common good'. It was > part of the philosophy of the day that since these services were organised > for the common good of all citizens they were too important to be left to > the foibles of the 'free' market. To do so was nothing short of heresy. > Then in 1984 all that began to change. The "borrow and hope" policies of > the Muldoon era were just getting the country further and further into > debt. The medicine of "mini-budgets" and "fine-tuning" was just making the > patient ever sicker and it all had to change, so we were told, if > prosperity was ever to be restored. The heavily-regulated capitalism we had > all become used to under Muldoon was producing more and more of what the > world wanted less and less. New Zealand was sinking under vast seas of > subsidies as the public debt grew to massive levels while an over > subsidised farming sector had become inefficient and wasteful. It all had > to stop as New Zealand slipped from about 5th in the world to something > like 25th. > > The answer so the gurus of the time, led by Roger Douglas told us, was to > liberalise everything from health to education to local affairs and let > "the market" sort it all out. This implies that there is an in-built > efficiency in the private sector and that if we privatise much of what > used to be called "public utilities", which suposedly exist solely for the > "common good", for example local government, we will end up with a more > efficient and cost-effective system. > > If this is so, why do my rates keep climbing just as fast today as they did > then? > > The trouble, as I see it, is that the wheel has turned full-circle. > Whereas in the bad old days back in the 1970s and 1980s there may have been > an over reliance on subsidies to keep the good ship Aotearoa afloat, today > we seem to have gone too much the other way and placed everything, > including public utilities, in the hands of private business. > > Take local government as an example. I agree that the amount spent on > so-called 'business experts' and consultants is absolutely frightening. > The assumption is that by contracting out public services, such as waste > disposal, to private firms we can become more efficient and eliminate > waste. But can we? > > According to what has been called the "Dark Ages Model" of economic thought > and linked to Milton Freidman and championed by Roger Kerr of the Business > Roundtable here in New Zealand, it is akin to theft not to create as much > of a return to shareholders as possible as a result of any business > transaction. To do so is being socially responsible. > > Now it seems to a dummy like me, that if this is done with a public utility > which supposedly exists primarily to serve the common good the end result > will be more expense, not less. This is because the profit that is > generated must come from somewhere and in the case of Council affairs this > 'somewhere' surely must be the long-suffering ratepayer. If it is a sin > not to generate as much profit as possible, as Roger Kerr believes, then it > follows that the temptation must always be there to raise costs for maximum > returns to shareholders, not lower them, since this means ever greater > profits which can always be passed on to the ratepayer. Thus the more > 'efficiency experts' who can be employed drawing vast sums of ratepayer > money the better. > > This might help explain why, on a recent visit to the Community House my > wife found it seemed a good idea that an outside water tap be supplied at > the rear of the building for the purpose of cleaning unwanted excrement. > She also found that she cannot go directly to the Council and put the idea > directly to them. The first step is to take the idea to City Enterprises > and discuss it with them, who will then assess the cost and pass the > information on to the Property Development Manager who will make the final > decision whether in fact the expense is in fact warranted. If, after > further deliberation, it is considered a good idea then a decision must be > made whether it can be included in this years estimates or deferred till > next year. But is this the cheapest and most cost effective way of doing > things? Why must a simple thing like a tap have to go through two arms of > council before any decision can be made? Why not just one? > > We've been having efficiency drives and cost cutting ever since the whole > idea of privatisation of local body affairs was first thought of more than > 15 years ago and yet nothing ever seems to get any cheaper. It might also > help explain why Project Save (dubbed Project Waste by one councillor), > reported in Thursday's Evening Standard(4/4/02) will actually end up losing > at least $665,000 in New Zealand dollars. > > Maybe my argument is flawed and I have got it all wrong. If this is the > case I hope there is somebody out there who will be able to point out my > error. > > Regards, > > Ross Swanston >
