snip
You whole premise is predicated on the assumption that government
workers are efficient, and that the private sector workers are lazy and
corrupt. Yet, in another breath, you throw accolades at unions. That
seems to be an inconsistant viewpoint.

My complaint was your generalization that all unions are corrupt, and all
union workers are lazy. The union worker I have worked with have been pretty
good.


If you are going to privatize everything tell my how we won't pay more
in
the way of profit for the company doing the work.

A for-profit company comes up with a price up front, based on a mutual
understanding of the scope of work. If they fail to meet the deadline,
they lose profit. That's the incentive for them to get the job done.
Inspectors, ensure that the job is done properly.


Is your only answer in
letting some private company cut wages and benefits for the worker so
you
can have a clean conscious about screwing the worker doing the job? Or
is
the saving going to be in the corners cut?

Why must every answer involve screwing over someone? Even at inflated
union wages, the private sector is still more efficient than the
government.

I don't advocate that the services have to be delivered in an inefficient
way. I advocate that they be delivered. If you want to make the delivery of
government services efficient, then we are on the same page.

Can private enterprise be part of this? I would have to agree that this is
so in many cases. Perhaps not in all. I have trouble with certain jobs being
performed by the private sector. The apportionment between public and
private delivery of these services is what good governance is all about.

The selection of what services *should* be part of every life should be the
heart of the political discussion.

Take health care. I agree that the government is likely to be a poor choice
for delivery of this service. This should be administered by the employer.
The government role in this is an effective and enforced set of rules that
all employees should receive this service. You work, you get healthcare. As
it stands, a big chunk of the economy now bypasses this rule by claiming
that all the 39.9 hours per week jobs are not full time, so there is no need
to provide this service. This drives many poor onto the welfare roles so
they have the care they need for their children. Now I have to pay for these
welfare moms so you get $1.00 burgers. Allowing these sorts of loop holes is
services provided is bad governance. We end up paying a much higher price in
the long run.

As far as my personal experience with privatizing government services;
In
the USA the military has gone to private subcontractors to do the lab
calibration work. Since this has started we have seen a massive increase
in
shoddy work and just plain incompetence in the work done to the
equipment we
provide to the military.

The obvious conclusion: The company you were using, was not a good one.
It's a stretch to project that the whole concept of privatization, is
somehow at fault.

You don't get the picture. The labs that do this work are scattered all over
the country. As the military has privatized this service, I have seen a
massive increase in shoddy work on our equipment all over the country. We
are suffering greatly for this, as the problems look like they are
originating in our equipment. In all cases that I have investigated, the
problems are coming from sub-standard work by private contractors.

The "magic' of the marketplace does not
automatically insure that we will get better and cheaper services.

It does as long as there is competition.

Do keep in mind that in nature it is acceptable for a species to die out. If
a necessary service is "not economical" to provide that does not lessen our
dependence on it.

Effective competition involves a bundle of conditions to work effectively. A
manipulated economic environment may not favor the most effective answer.
Take an example: The rail service. This is easily the most efficient way to
move good long distances. From a purely technical point of view, containers
and rail should be moving almost everything between every major city. I have
no question in my mind that had evolution of the system continued, rail
would be vastly more efficient and useful than it is now. Automated loading,
unloading, scheduling and dispatch could easily make the rails a valuable
addition to companies like UPS. Rails could be moving goods and passengers
at 300 mph between city centers at low cost. Instead, the influence of big
money has brought this valuable resource to virtual ruin. The odds of
another private rail system springing up to take its place are virtually
nil.

As far a bureaucracies go - I have a lot of respect for ours. When you
flush
a toilet, it does, thanks to some officious government workers hounding
private contractors until they get it right.

It should. The government is willing to pay $300 for a toilet seat. The
private sector is a little more discriminating.

Bad example. Do a little research on this case. That seat was not the one
you use at home. This was part of the fancy molded assembly on an aircraft
toilet assembly. Aerospace materials + low volume = high prices.

Better example: The $300 hammer. This is what happens when an agency puts an
item out for bid and nobody bids on it. You should like this part: These
second offerings like this are listed in the federal register; a private
industry has sprung up around filling these orders. They get to charge large
fees as the only providers of the part. I know how you believe that
competition will magically solve every problem; here is your chance to get
rich! You can go into this business and charge less.

These silly rules about putting items up for bid are a response to rampant
corruption. Before this, buyers made bad deals for huge kickbacks. Now we
have open competitive bidding for the items the military buys. I see it as a
failure of the private market to respond to the open bids the government
puts out. Now, how should we fix this?

We pay our government workers
enough that pervasive corruption is not a part of our lives.

You think the very human weakness of greed and corruption, is magically
removed once you're in the government? You must think Bush is a saint
then.......

Nice sarcasm.

I am leaving for Indonesia for a 1.5 week trip today. I will be looking at
all the example of how well their government works with poorly paid
government workers. Do you think I will get the same good services I am used
to in the USA? Assuming that I don't get kidnapped and held for ransom, I
will report back what I see.

In countries
where they have lower taxes and pay the workers less you must still pay
everybody to do their jobs; you grease every palm in sight to get
anything
done. They still have to make a living; think of it as user fees: you
pay to
get your letters mailed or delivered, you pay to get the police to leave
you
alone, you pay to get your marriage license, you pay to get your trash
picked up.

I do much of that now. Hell, I find that the trash men now consider it
an insult, if you don't "tip" them. A TIP for doing what they're
supposed to do? Gimmeabreak....

This is my point. You live in the USA and can't image having to pay
government workers to get something done that is supposed to be part of
their job.

You *would* pay the government workers if you lived in India. Or else you
would not get any services. Ask anybody who has lived there. Anybody else on
the list want to weigh in on having to pay little bribes to get government
services in either the USA or other countries?

It goes on and on. Ask anybody who has spent any time in India or
China. Bribes are a fact of life, it sucks - lots. From what I have
seen,
the jobs are usually done very poorly. The big problem is when you pay
your
bribe to get your permits, the quality of the job has nothing to do with
it.
That is why building fall down in these countries after earthquakes.

You're going on that wild ride again, and painting a picture that looks
more like a Mexican jail, than the private sector of the US.

Please elaborate. Are you saying that the fussy USA building inspectors
don't really do anything? Or are you saying that the building inspectors in
Iran do? Before you answer you may wish to do a little google'ing on the
damage and loss of life by earthquakes in various parts of the world.

You may not like paying the full price for government service, but you
really do need to see how bad it is when you don't pay much for it; you
don't get very much!

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to see the waste that a bloated
bureaucracy such as a governmental agency has. As long as they don't
have to show a profit, or are accountable to the people who pay them
(The taxpayers) they are free to dip a little deeper whenever they run a
little short. There is simply no incentive for a government agency to be
the most efficient. Where is the competition?

Dave

If you just think that stopping the services is the right answer, then we
are in disagreement.

You see ways to deliver these services more efficiently? For all citizens
equally? Bring it on; I will be right there with you.

I get no joy out of wasting my money. It is our shared responsibility to
keep the system efficient. That said, I think that our system works better
than anywhere else I have ever been. I see what we get here and compare it
to what I see when I travel the rest of the world and I like what I get in
the USA.

Mark Browne