What a wonderful post! Rarely have I seen the issues posed as concisely and clearly.
For those who argue that freedom from government regulation and control will result in the greatest good for everyone, I would like to ask whether they truly believe that lack of government regulation does, in fact, result in competition or, does deregulation result, as it has in the United States and many other countries, on a growing stranglehold by a few corporations in any particular industry-name one-energy, automobiles, airlines, banks, etc. etc. Is this growing monopolization of industries not public knowledge? It is a mystery to me, given what is constantly being revealed about the attempts of various corporations to strangle competition, how anyone can argue that laissez-faire can work for the public good. Selma ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ross James Swanston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 7:49 AM Subject: re: Privatizing the Public: Whose agenda? At What Cost? > I have followed this discussion as best I might and found some valuable and > thought provoking contributions along the way. The article of Albrecht on > deregulation I feel made a lot of sense in spite of allegations to the > contrary. However, I really feel the discussion strayed from the point > somewhat since I first wrote on this subject back in February. For > instance, the latest discussion between Bruce Leier, Harry Pollard and Ed > Weick seems to have been more about competition and little to do with the > virtues or otherwise of public provision versus private control. > > As an aside, I can see that Harry Pollard is a great fan of competition as > he seems to be saying that competition will solve many of society's ills > though I would dispute that assumption. Competition is good for everyone > he says, as we will end up with quality goods at cheap prices. This is > only partially true I fear as no matter how much competition you have, it > will not eliminate human greed. Nor will it eliminate exploitation of > workers by big multi-national corporations. On the contrary, fierce > competition will more likely make this exploitation worse as firms scramble > for an ever bigger share of the cake and ever bigger profits. In fact, as > the world becomes continually faster under the continuing onslaught of > relentless competition there will be increasing numbers in the future who > will be casualties along the way as a result of the conflict. We will then > ask, - Was it all worth it? But that is another story. > > I am merely pointing out that while competition may be just wonderful, as > Harry Pollard believes, it does have its downside. > > But to get back to the point instead of digressing since the purpose of my > original post was to stimulate debate between the public sector versus > private control, whose interests does it serve if we adhere to one side or > the other of the political divide and what are the costs as far as serving > the 'common good' is concerned? > > I would like to pose two basic questions:- > > (1) Should Public Utilities be Privatized? > > I guess it all depends on how one views the role of government since there > is no doubt this is on a continuum from the far left who support maximum > government intervention to the far right who see government as little more > than a referee to set the rules. That means it all depends where our > priorities lie and what is the best way of providing for the 'common good'? > > Take electricity generation as an example. In the 1930s when this utility > was provided by the Ministry of Works as an arm of government, hydro > stations were built by the government at enormous expense to provide both a > public service and help New Zealand out of the Great Depression by creating > jobs. The fact it produced enormous public debt didn't matter as it helped > get the country out of the Depression by getting the country back to work, > thus creating wealth. The other crucial factor was of course the war. Now > this service is all provided by private enterprise as it is supposed to > be both cheaper and more efficient. But is it? > > When recent complaints were made to the government about electricity price > hikes we were told that new hydro power stations cannot be built until > prices rise sufficiently to provide enough return to investors to make > building power stations viable. So it seems that the system itself > encourages price rises. > > (2) Where Do We Draw the Line Between a Public Service and Private Control? > > Here we are faced by a conflict between social costs and social objectives > for in recent years public policy has been dominated by economic issues. > This means that many sections of society, especially the low paid and the > disadvantaged (eg the disabled and the elderly) have been left out in the > cold in the mad rush to liberalise, balance the budget, and squeeze as much > profit out of everything, including 'public' services. The dilemma is that > underlying what we are trying to provide when we talk about a 'public' > service versus private control is that we are attempting to reconcile > opposing values. On the one hand a public service is trying to build > community, establish relationships, create fairness, justice and so on > whereas the private sector is not concerned with any of these things but > sees everything in dollar terms and attempts to put a dollar value on > everything. > > Take housing as an example on this one. A few weeks ago there was a > terrible row in Auckland when the City Council decided selling off Council > housing as part of a strategy to slice about $24 Million (NZ) off the > Council budget. The new mayor, John Banks, said that it was not the job > of council to provide cheap housing so the flats would be sold as they > became vacant to private landlords. This provoked a storm of furious > protests and several council meetings were reduced to chaos as placard > wielding protesters invaded council meetings. > > As a result the government has now introduced legislation to make it harder > for councils to sell off pensioner housing. Several strict conditions must > be now met before pensioner housing can be sold. One of these I believe is > where housing is sold the needs of the elderly must be met in some other > way. The occupants of council flats have been absolutely delighted at this > development though there has been a more muted reaction from the Council > itself. > > Well that's my two cents worth for now. > > Regards > > Ross >
