Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Andre Marrou/Nancy Lord in '92!
From: koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis)
Date: 24 Jul 92 12:14:52 EDT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <1992Jul23.212847.8017@bradley.bradley.edu> sreardon@bradley.bradley.edu (Steven Reardon) writes:
>In <1992Jul23.152708.14105@husc3.harvard.edu> koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis) writes:
>
>>THis selling off of gov't industry was the key plank of Margaret
>>Thatcher's cure for the UK.  We all can see how well it has worked
>>there.......NOT.    People just made alot of profit on the
>>privatizing of industry but can't say it has helped the UK
>>become a stronger, industrial country.  Hey, Jaguar is now
>>owned by some American company, so much for Buying British cars
>
>Not to get picky or anything but British Ford was around a loooong time before
>they bought Jaguar.  Ever heard of the Prefect?  It was a standard over there
>for years.  Also, the U.K. government never owned Jaguar.

British Ford might have been around along time,
but it is still American.  Just like Japanese car companies builiding
cars in the US, theprofits go to Japanese companies.  They provide jobs for 
Americans like Ford plants provides jobs the British.  But they are still
American.


Jaguar was allowed to be privatized -- bought in public by the govt,
and now it is no longer British.


>
>>for Princess Di.  Seriously, privatization theories are usually
>>just that -- theories, and dont usually do what all their
>>proponents like Thatcher would claim.  
>
>Nonsense.  Private businesses run better than public ones.  Who makes more 
>profit per year: Burlington Northern or Amtrak?  Who gets higher test scores:
>private school kids or public school kids?  And that's even considering that
>the private companies/schools are laboring against unfair regulations and
>competition from the government.
>

Private business run better than public ones ..... that is what all nice
conservatives believe.  But I hate to break it to you, lots and lots 
of private businesses are badly run, badly managed, etc.  In case you
havent notices lots and lots of businesses are losing money in the US.
Being private is no guarnatee it will run well.

And take a look at last weeks Sunday NY TImes, they had an article about
Paris.  In it there was an item about the public, state supported
schools that people want to go to.  In fact, have waiting lists to
go to, are so prestigious that people move to the area to go there.
In fact, most people in France who go to private school do so because
they want a religious education not because they think private schools are
better.

Alot of public schools in the US are good -- they just happen to
be in middle class and wealthier areas so the poor dont have access to them.

The truth is that people like Georgie dont care about educating people
so they have tried to convince us all that the gov't cant do it. George
doesnt want to have lots of education because people would then
realize how terrible he was, and what fraudulent arguments he used
so they would all vote against him.  :-)



>Even if privitization didn't make a dime for the government, it would still
>be better for business and better for the economy.
>

Ho hum, more propaganda, now what theory will you quote me on that.  I
guess health care is better with all that competition.  SOme things
work well with competition (i.e. like cars) and some things due to
efficiency and cost concerns might work better as one company.

For instance, I dont know if you were around for the debates on health
regulation with the dear departed Jason W. Solinsky but in it JWS had this
phenomenal idea that there should be lots of little competing
health inspection agencies to inspect restaurants to see if they were
safe and healthy.  The problem with this is that restaurants would
like to be able to know what they need to know, hence one set of
regulations is better so they can rely and plan on the basis of
this.  Also the time and effort spent by all these companies would be
a waste since customers before they eat dont want to have to research
a bunch of different health inspecting organizations to see which
one is the best to have a restaurant certified with.  And so on and so
on.  Cost, efficieny would call for one inspection process that is
also open to more than just the restaurant industry (if they set the
standards ten they will be too low) but open to food, health experts
etc.  In that case, the gov't would be the most efficeint.  (though
I think the appeal process of administrative law could be perhaps
speeded up).



Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc