| Shearwater |
10-10-09 12:50 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aramike
(Post 1186208)
The problem is the benchmarks for both government and private companies.
In government, the result usually doesn't matter if you can spin it to make it seem positive.
In private companies, results don't usually matter if you can profit from it.
That's why I agree with privatization, mostly - and government regulation, in the cases that most directly affect the public business. Let the private companies use their approach to dollars and cents efficiency, while the government assures quality.
|
I disagree.
State-owned business exists to do things that are necessary, but do not pay off financially. Thus, the first thing they have to do is to provide certain goods or services for which they, in a manner of speaking, receive state-funded compensation. Now I'm well aware that a lot can (or rather could) be improved (speaking as someone who regularly works in a company that was privatized not so long ago and still has its traces of stately slothfulness). In any case, they are to be considered effective if they can manage to do the things they are supposed while keeping expenses at a minimum.
Private business on the other hand is there to make money, and to that end everything else is secondary. People don't sell cars or pork bellies because they believe that doing so is inherently good, but because they simply want to make money. In order to do that, business has to be effective in a capitalist sense, which means maximizing profits (obvious of course, so I hope I don't sound too lecturing :DL).
Anyway, that's the way I see it.
That said, I simply cannot understand how on Earth a private police force could possibly work - I mean: How do they make money? Charging fees for every crime they prevent? If it's just about governmental outsourcing, it is still worse, not least because it introduces yet another layer of administration. |
