Hi Ross: Geez Ross, these are kind of heretical thoughts. I mean 'efficiency' makes sense - common sense. Profit is good, right? Excessive profit is just a reward for doing something really well, right? Bigger is better, right, I mean those economies of scale, they really make sense. Experts and those who are 'educated', like they know what they are doing, right? I mean cretins like you me, the uneducated masses, like we just don't know the stats, right? We better be careful, they will soon have to open a file on us, you know - them, who protect all that is good and right.
I was watching one of the local comedy shows the other night doing a skit in interviewing the Prime Minister re our constantly falling dollar. "At what point Mr. Prime Minister, does the Loonie just become a big penny? The 'loonie' being our .62 dollar compared to big brother in the land to the south. Good post, Thomas Lunde on 4/4/02 10:47 PM, Ross James Swanston at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > "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 > >
