On 3/28/04 4:50 PM, "Anderson & Turpin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mark Snyder wrote, along with several irrelevant anecdotes: > The so-called inefficiency of government programs is a myth spun by "garage > logic" adherents and (Rich) Taxpayers League flunkies. The point of my "irrelevant" anecdotes was to provide examples that run counter to Mr. Anderson's assertion of the "inherent inefficiency" of government. If inefficiency in "inherent" in government, then it should be difficult to find examples to the contrary. But I provided several. I thought the comparison of processing my tax return to my electric bill particularly apt. If privatization is so much more efficient, why does Xcel have a much harder time processing a simple bill payment than the state does with processing a tax form? > Mark Anderson: > I don't know what "garage logic" is, but here's some logic derived simply > from living in a modern society and watching events. There are several > reasons that government programs are inherently less efficient than private > operations. I define efficiency as providing the highest level of goods and > services desired by consumers at the lowest cost. > > 1) Government is a monopoly, so no one can decline to pay for their > services. Naturally there is less incentive for the service providers to > provide what is desired by the service receivers. The only incentive for > the ultimate bosses is to get re-elected. This is an obvious problem with > the bus strike, since providing bus service won't help much to get Pawlenty > re-elected. Does this sound like an efficient system, Mark? Um, wrong. People can decline to pay for government services by electing folks who are intent in reducing services. As we're seeing now at the state level. Although one could make the case that voters were duped, since Pawlenty and his cohorts were not upfront about their plans to slash and burn state services or push off their responsibilities on local governments. The main flaw with Mr. Anderson's example of the bus strike is that his conclusion that government is inherently inefficient isn't the only logical outcome, as he seems to conclude. It seems that Mr. Anderson draws much of his conclusion from the premise that elected officials are only motivated by what will get them re-elected. I find that to be a cynical premise, but granting it for the sake of this example, assuming that Pawlenty is focused on getting re-elected and doesn't care about the bus strike because it won't help him get re-elected, one could just as easily conclude that Pawlenty is a lousy governor who doesn't understand the concept of serving all the citizens of the state and not just those who contribute to his campaigns. That's not the same thing as government being "inherently inefficient" now, is it? > 2) Corollary of #1: In government the way to get ahead is to do activities > that look good politically. In business the way to get ahead is to satisfy > one's customer at the lowest possible cost. If the way to get ahead in business is to satisfy one's customer at the lowest possible cost, how do you explain pharmaceutical companies? They seem to be both high-cost and low-satisfaction and yet are among the most profitable industries out there right now. Perhaps Mr. Anderson is simplifying things a bit too much? Could there be other factors in how businesses get ahead, like buying favors from elected officials? Does that make government "inherently inefficient" or does that make certain elected officials corrupted by the dollars of certain businesses who would rather buy influence than compete on a level playing field? > 3) Accountability to the voters is very diffuse, because all services run > through just a few office holders (and two political parties). Voters must > weigh services of all kinds when they determine which official to vote for. > They may vote for a candidate that represents poor bus service and police > protection, because they also represent good roads and garbage service. > When choosing a business to patronize, one may base the decision on just the > one service they provide. I think this might be a good comparison if we're talking about small businesses that only provide one or two products or services or that have a large number of competitors within the industry. But in this era of consolidations, mergers and acquisitions, I think larger businesses now have even less accountability than Mr. Anderson attributes to government. Heck, foreign corporations have NAFTA to protect them from even being accountable to US state or federal government regulations anymore. All they have to do is sue under Chapter 11 for damages if they believe they have been hurt by the action of a government. http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_tdfull.html Given that, I'm surprised there even are any still US-based corporations. > 4) When businesses fail to satisfy their customers or spend too much, they > go out of business (if government doesn't bail them out). When government > fails, at best new candidates are elected, usually with little change to the > provision of services. Really? Explain the trend in Minnesota state-level government, then. There's been little change in the provision of services? Ha! > 5) Candidates are selected based on their political skills, not any > knowledge they have in running an enterprise. Occasionally this happens in > business too, but those businesses normally go under quickly. Can you provide an example of this point and explain how it makes government "inherently inefficient?" Because what it tells me is that we just have voters who could maybe employ some better decision-making at the ballot box. > 6) Government is constantly buffeted by complaints, many of which have > little to do with providing services to consumers. Businesses can ignore > such complaints as long as consumers are satisfied, but government must > spend most of their management time dealing with such political issues, at > the expense of the actual services they provide. Can you provide examples of this notion? I'm having a hard time envisioning any. Unless maybe you're thinking of something like folks complaining about stuff like pollution or noise from a nearby manufacturing facility. I guess businesses can just ignore that as long as the customers are satisfied. That doesn't seem to me to be like a very good argument for privatization, though. I want my service providers to take things like that into account and be good neighbors rather than just ignore them. > This is not just a left vs. right issue. Many leftists have been bitterly > blaming Pawlenty and Bell for the bus strike. The poor are indeed being > left in the cold in this fight, and part of the reason is because it's a > government-run operation. As Terrell pointed out, what is the incentive for > the Republicans to settle the strike? The government has no incentive to > provide services unless it helps them get re-elected. If businesses ran our > mass transit system, they'd be hurting every day the buses weren't running. > > Also, what skills does Bell have in running a transit system? Other than > his time at TCF, he's just been a political activist. I suspect even his > TCF time was basically public relations. He doesn't. But does that mean government is "inherently inefficient" or does it mean Tim Pawlenty did a rotten job of selecting members to appoint to Met Council? Maybe it means Rep. Hornstein is on the right track with his bill calling for Met Council to be elected and not appointed by the governor because that would provide some accountability? > Now that Democrats see the direction the government moves under the opposing > party, they should understand that privatization is beneficial to them too. > Well, it would be beneficial to their constituency, which isn't really the > same thing as beneficial to the Party. But if we de-politicize a service, > and instead provide private incentives to run it well, one ends up with a > better result. I think privatization mostly benefits the business owners that would gain contracts from privatizing services. For example, I noticed from one of his email addresses that Mr. Anderson works for GE Infrastructure, presumably their water services division in Minnetonka. One of their business areas is outsourcing waste water treatment (managing water treatment facilities for municipalities) - a partnership they have with Vivendi. I would encourage folks who want to learn more about the pros and cons of privatization to do a Google search on Vivendi sometime and see what kinds of interesting stuff you'll find out about what happens when you privatize water supplies. It's not pretty. Or maybe I'm just cynical. Mark Snyder Windom Park REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
