Public sector government vs. private sector government.

[Machjo]

Which would you prefer between the following two systems, overall:

1. The government taxes us with high taxes, and then uses that money to provide services for us.

2. The government mandates certain responsibilities on the private sector to provide certain services to the public, and limits its revenue to the sale of crown resources, fines, and service fees.

I realise that there is always some of both, but my question is which one do you tend to lean towards most.

 

[Machjo]

Now I'm not saying that option 2 above would allow us to escape 'taxes' altogether. While taxes woudl drop, overjead costs in some industries would likely increase to compensate for the added responsibilities mandated by the government.

Then again, that could eb a way to give the private sector an incentive to find imaginative solutions to unemployment so as to reduce the burden on itself.

 

[Machjo]

This could also mean having to scrap minimumwages possibly.

 

[Cannuck]

Which would you prefer between the following two systems, overall:

1. The government taxes us with high taxes, and then uses that money to provide services for us.

2. The government mandates certain responsibilities on the private sector to provide certain services to the public, and limits its revenue to the sale of crown resources, fines, and service fees.

I realise that there is always some of both, but my question is which one do you tend to lean towards most.

If I had to choose tween the two, I would have to go with #1. Only because of things like car insurance and privatization of utilities here in Alberta. Taxpayers are getting royally screwed. There is a lot of talk here about switching to government auto insurance. Recently, power production was excessive and had to be reduced. Rather than shut down gas burning generators, Transalta shut down wind turbines. Obviously the long term benefits to the ratepayers is not and was not taken into account.

Ideally, basic necessities should be managed by governments with the interests of the public as the prime concern. Private industry can look after the rest. One of the big problems we have is deciding what is "a basic necessity.

 

[darkbeaver]

A basic necessity is to rid ourselves of the private interests, specifically banks and transnationals.

 

[AnnaG]

Which would you prefer between the following two systems, overall:

1. The government taxes us with high taxes, and then uses that money to provide services for us.

2. The government mandates certain responsibilities on the private sector to provide certain services to the public, and limits its revenue to the sale of crown resources, fines, and service fees.

I realise that there is always some of both, but my question is which one do you tend to lean towards most.

That's a toughie, Machjo. A couple decades ago I would have said private is better, as gov'ts tend to be extremely inefficient, and snivel serpents tend to be plodders. The private sector used to have a fairly high degree of pride in workmanship and were definitely more efficient. Nowadays, I think the private sector is almost indistinguishable from the gov'ts in quality and efficiency of workmanship.

 

[Machjo]

If I had to choose tween the two, I would have to go with #1. Only because of things like car insurance and privatization of utilities here in Alberta. Taxpayers are getting royally screwed. There is a lot of talk here about switching to government auto insurance. Recently, power production was excessive and had to be reduced. Rather than shut down gas burning generators, Transalta shut down wind turbines. Obviously the long term benefits to the ratepayers is not and was not taken into account.

Ideally, basic necessities should be managed by governments with the interests of the public as the prime concern. Private industry can look after the rest. One of the big problems we have is deciding what is "a basic necessity.

You do have some valid points there.

 

[Machjo]

A basic necessity is to rid ourselves of the private interests, specifically banks and transnationals.

And there's no corruption in the public sector?

I remember one man telling me how one of his friends had a tough time getting contracts with the Ottawa City government because alot of retired public servants started up their own businesses and got many contracts for themselves.

So who'll guard the guards?

 

[AnnaG]

Mr. Beaver seems to have an unrealistically high opinion of communist ideology.
But then some people are just as unrealistic about capitalism.

 

[Machjo]

That's a toughie, Machjo. A couple decades ago I would have said private is better, as gov'ts tend to be extremely inefficient, and snivel serpents tend to be plodders. The private sector used to have a fairly high degree of pride in workmanship and were definitely more efficient. Nowadays, I think the private sector is almost indistinguishable from the gov'ts in quality and efficiency of workmanship.

You do have some valid points there too, especially when it comes to the worship of money at all costs, where the private sector no longer has any sense of social responsibility.

I suppose education needs reform. Schools have to reintroduce moral education as a priority.

 

[AnnaG]

Introducing priorities just by itself would be a daunting task.

 

[Cannuck]

Introducing priorities just by itself would be a daunting task.

- food

- water

- protection from elements

- health care

- transportation infrastructure

The government doesn't necessarily have to provide these things but the need to be regulated as a minimum. Food, for example, can be obtained from numerous places so there is no monopoly but there is only one water line in front of your house. Privatizing it will lead to abuses.

 

[AnnaG]

And after it takes gov't 5 weeks to come and do maintenance on the water line? You like inefficiency? Shabby workmanship?
No gov'ts don't abuse people at all. lol
Something called the firearms registry pops into mind heree.

 

[Cannuck]

And after it takes gov't 5 weeks to come and do maintenance on the water line? You like inefficiency? Shabby workmanship?
No gov'ts don't abuse people at all. lol

I manage 7 several separate municipal water systems and have extensive experience in both public and private operations. If you want to debate the overall effectiveness of government run utilities I'm game but I must warn you, it will be ugly and you may never fully recover.

 

[AnnaG]

lmao
I believe you. However you will never convince me that neither gov'ts nor private sectors do the best job in everything. That is why I am fence-sitting on this. The firearms registry is a flop. It is badly conceived, badly managed, inefficient as allgetout, and expensive to boot. But then, I take a look at GM and see the same kind of nonsense there.

 

[Machjo]

- food

- water

- protection from elements

- health care

- transportation infrastructure

The government doesn't necessarily have to provide these things but the need to be regulated as a minimum. Food, for example, can be obtained from numerous places so there is no monopoly but there is only one water line in front of your house. Privatizing it will lead to abuses.

Some monopolistic industries such as telecommunications could potentially be privatised:

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/business/85330-how-deal-natural-monoloplies.html

I'm not necessarily saying it's a good idea or a bad idea, but just that different options are available.

 

[Machjo]

I would agree that there are some things government can do best, and others the private sector can do best.

 

[Cannuck]

The firearms registry is a flop. It is badly conceived, badly managed, inefficient as allgetout, and expensive to boot.

The problem is a lack of well defined goals and objectives. That is a common problem with most government operations and/or programs and tends to be more of a problem at the federal and provincial levels. Has anybody ever given realistic and measurable goals and objectives for the gun registry?

Many aspects of government management can work efficiently if the goals and objective are well defined. One aspect of my job is to determine what exists for infrastructure, what condition it's in, what it's worth, what its life expectancy is and what regular maintenance is required. The standards for water treatment and quality are well defined as well. I'm actually in the process of developing operation and maintenance plans 20 to 25 years into the future.

Privatizing the system probably would work out better for me personally but I see what's happened in some other municipalities and the public interest has not been served in the overwhelming majority.

 

[Cannuck]

Some monopolistic industries such as telecommunications could potentially be privatised:

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/business/85330-how-deal-natural-monoloplies.html

I'm not necessarily saying it's a good idea or a bad idea, but just that different options are available.

Wireless technology sure. Land line service has been ridiculous since Alberta deregulated and privatized.

 

[AnnaG]

I definitely agree with you there. Can't give you another greenie yet. lol