Walker Wants to Privatize Food Stamp Distribution in Wisconsin

[Mac1337]

I am talking Mclean, Tysons, VIenna, Falls Church. One of these days we might run into each other.

[rjmacs]

cbelt3 wrote:
[quote=rjmacs]
[quote=cbelt3]
Let's face it. Privatization is a government's form of 'offshoring'. Rather than increase cost (ie taxes), every corner that can be cut .. is.

Well, cbelt3, there are some significant differences; chiefly, that corporations tend to offshore when it saves the company money, whereas governments tend to privatize services for political reasons. Rather than 'cutting corners' and reducing costs, privatization of public services usually costs more and/or does not provide the services required by statute.
Uhm.... the justification for privatization is always about money, not just 'political reasons' like sticking it to the unions. As far as services provided, etc. that is usually caused by bad contractual terms and conditions. Which then implies that governments are dumb and corporations are smart. To which I'm not going to completely disagree.

I've seen bad examples of privatization. I can understand.
Actually, cbelt3, privatization is often about 'getting the government out of the business of _____,' which is what i meant by political reasons. There are often public promises made about saving money, but the track record on privatization is so clear that i don't believe that most politicians really think that privatizing services saves money. And if they don't really think it will cost less, then the reason they're doing it is ideological, not fiscal. They believe that it's better to transfer public revenue to the private sector than it is to employ people in public jobs and bureaucracies. You can agree or disagree with this sentiment, but it is the more genuine reason behind privatization efforts.

'Governments are dumb and corporations are smart' in sectors and services where profit is a reasonable expectation. However, much of what government does isn't profitable and doesn't comport well with profit-driven models. Government bureaucracies tend to normalize toward efficiencies of scale and compliance, two things that can bog down organizations that thrive on efficiency and flexibility. For many government offices, the 'customer base' is everyone who lives in the jurisdiction; it's really tough to develop a corporate model that serves everyone - it's just too large and burdensome.

I'm not arguing for or against government or the private sector. I'm arguing that to each universe there are appropriate jobs and tasks and projects. Privatization often oversimplifies reality in an attempt to push everything toward a universal model (namely, that the market can handle any problem or task better than the government); i disagree, and favor giving each sector its due.

Thanks for your thoughts - i appreciate them.

[mattkime]

the simple reason why privatization fails so often is because the magic of free enterprise doesn't work unless there is competition.

its funny how the biggest proponents of the free market seem to understand little what makes it tick.

[rjmacs]

mattkime wrote:
the simple reason why privatization fails so often is because the magic of free enterprise doesn't work unless there is competition.

its funny how the biggest proponents of the free market seem to understand little what makes it tick.

And, mattkime, it's really not feasible to have competition in a sector where services are required to be offered to everyone by statute or regulation. At the very least, it would be inefficient to do so.

[Acer]

Another downside to privatization is low-bidder syndrome. The pressure to go for the cheapest offer can lead to poor quality results. It might meet "spec," but we all have had contractors who met "spec" but still managed to do a substandard job. Market forces don't guarantee anything without close oversight by the customer.

[RgrF]

When I was a college student/taxi driver in Boston I'd never fail to mention that the underharbor tunnel we were using either to or from Logan was built by the lowest possible politically connected bidder.

It was most effective when mentioned at the tunnel entrance and augmented with pointing out leaks and how often I had to run this risk. Except for natives and New Yorkers, it helped with tips.