Skip to main content

View Diary: Privatization is "cheaper" -- For Whom, exactly? (116 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm sorry, I don't think I endorsed (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ladybug53, jamess, James Kresnik

    "[sending] all the public employees packing". What I said was: in specific cases, where there's a serious competitive market for a service, and where costs could be cut with no decrease in quality of service - for example, by going for a pest-control contractor instead of hiring someone to do pest control in-house - it makes sense.

    Of course the goals of corporate management and government management are different. Corporate management wants to make money by balancing the cost of providing a service against the cost of not maintaining the quality of that service; in other words, you want your customers to spend much on a service which costs you little, but you want them to keep coming back and not stray to a different provider.

    In contrast, government management - elected officials and appointed bureaucrats - presumably want to present the best service, in order to get reelected, reappointed, or not replaced. There are costs to balance here, too, although these often seem to be less of a concern (if the services in question don't go to poor and/or dark-skinned people).

    That everything we do in our society is part of a Grand Experiment should go without saying.

    I cannot believe my eyes; is the world finally growing wise? But it's plain to see, some kind of harmony is on the rise. -- Penny, "My Eyes", /Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog/

    by Shaviv on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 11:20:22 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site