From: smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Currency Problems
Date: 6 Oct 92 17:11:15 GMT
Reply-To: P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Organization: University of Bristol

In article <qnal7f0@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.100827.27951@bristol.ac.uk>, smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee) writes:
>|> In article <ql6g9ao@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>>	[I said that I see no evidence that private services
>>	are systematically better or worse than Govt. provided]
>>
>> Interesting, again I find that I start from the same set of 
>> assumptions and a similar set of experiences, and end up at the 
>> opposite pole to you.     (And, even worse, I'm pretty sure 
>> that we're of much the same ages.)
>
>Well, unless I am misunderstanding, it sound as though you
>do have evidence of some systematic difference in the quality
>of Govt. and private services.    I'd be interested to hear 
>what it is.

No, sorry, I was speaking more basically than that.  I don't see any
systematic differences in quality or price.  However, and while I will
grant that there are examples the other way, I can think of specific
examples of government services which compare very favourably with
private ones.  SNCF (French railways).  British and Swedish health
services as compared to American privatised health care.  (Come to
that, US public health as compared to US private, if you make due
allowances for the different set of customers.)  

Scottish water (not yet privatised) versus English water (now
privatised).  AmTrak.  (I'm aware that that is actually, or was when
created, a 'private company' in which the government simply held most
of the stock, but it's probably as near to nationalisation as the US
can get.  And, it compares very favourably with the state of the US
railways in the NE at the time when it was 'invented'.  In fact, see
below, it would be my preferred style of 'nationalisation'.)

My comment was at a much more fundamental level, in that I believe that
government provision is both reasonable and sensible in certain types
of cases, mentioned earlier, and that I can see no reason why it should
intrinsically have to be economically disadvantageous.  And that I
don't even see why 'private market' is necessarily the default position
in marginal cases.  

Feels to me like you definitely disagree with the latter, and probably
in some degree with the former.  I feel that people who write it off
reflexively ('government provision bad! free market good!') are, by
sheer knee-jerk, refusing to consider a style of solution which might
be precisely the ideal solution to some problems.

Now, I have an equal dislike for the folks at the other extreme
('market bad! government good!) for precisely the same reasons.  This
is why I seem to get into flaming rows with both the Tories and the
Socialists, each accusing me of being one of the other.  Insofar as I
believe that well-thought-out compromise is probably a necessary basis
for a reasonably functioning democracy (there's another argument I
could have with someone), the fact that the people at both ends of the
spectrum yell at me tends to strengthen my belief that I'm headed in
the right (or an effective) direction.

>> All I can do is repeat what I've said.  I can see reasons, in
>> principle, why government services in specific sorts of areas 
>> COULD be more efficient, and that my feeling is that, in those 
>> areas, government ought to be doing the things.  
>
>I'll go as far as to say that there are areas in which we all
>agree that some spending is needed, and it's inefficient to do
>it with bake-sales.   Defence, education, national health care,
>justice.

Ah, somewhere deep down there we DO have a point of agreement, then.
Interesting.  I'm really surprised you mention national health care,
but I certainly won't argue with it.  Does intrigue me that I see the
arguments for water as being precisely parallel to those for health
care, even down to the health issues, while you don't.  One of life's
little mysteries, I suppose.

>However, I don't agree that what is a good model in those
>areas necessarily extends to all the minor areas where local
>politicians would *like* to be your serice provider.    Just
>because it's efficient to have the Government build the
>fighter jets and aircraft carriers, doesn't mean that it's
>efficient for City Hall to haul your garbage and maintain the
>roads.

Can't argue with that first statement.  I'd put some of the lines in
different places.  You can have garbage hauling -- I don't see it as a
natural monopoly.  Should (health again) be organised by government,
but if they want to contract out the actual work, fine by me, as long
as standards are maintained.  

Roads, I think, need to be governmentally provided as long as transport
policies are as they are.  I would confess, though, that I could get
into privatised roads and fee-for-use, IF it were made to apply to ALL
roads.  That would, I think, tend to push general transportation usage
in a direction which I think would be good.  

Failing that, mass transit (buses, rail, ...) should, alternatively, be
subsidised to the same extent that private auto usage currently is.  At
present, the effective subsidies and market distortions are in
precisely the wrong direction.  (And, yes, I DO own a car, I even drove
it in to work today, a whole mile and a half.  Tomorrow we'll probably
walk.  Depends on which provides maximum functionality given the
planned events for the entire day.)

>> If they are not maximally efficient, the answer is to figure 
>> out WHY, not to go passing these things off to someone who, 
>> by virtue of needing a profit on top of the minimal costs,
>> does not even have the potential for ever hitting the minimum.
>
>Why should we spend our lives figuring out a way to make
>Govt. efficient in areas where private industry is already
>offering a better price?   If people want to run for office,
>I assume they are making an implicit claim that they already
>know how to manage things.   Why should I pay to elect local
>politicians and then pay again to train them to do their jobs
>when Harry's Haulage will do it for the cost of a phone call?
>So Harry's Haulage isn't "official?   So what?

Quick answer is, why not train them?  Companies arrange training
courses for their managers and executives, to enable them to better do
the jobs which, in theory, they are already qualified for as indicated
by the fact that they got them in the first place.  Also, it is one of
the weaknesses (and one of the strengths) of democracy that you don't
have to be a high-flying business magnate before you can get elected.
By your argument, H. Ross Perot is the perfect US presidential candidate.
He frightens the hell out of me.

Longer answer is that you are assuming too much.  I am not suggesting
that government run and operate the businesses which (should) fall
within their responsibility.  Rather, I would suggest that they could
set up what look just like PLCs, but in which the government is the
sole stockholder, and hire capable management who are charged not with
'make a maximum profit for us', but with 'make zero profit, at minimum
cost'.  I see no reason why that shouldn't work, and I can see economic
benefits to doing it.

-- 
Paul Smee, Computing Service, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1UD, UK
 P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk - ..!uunet!uknet!bsmail!p.smee - Tel +44 272 303132
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british