Public sector government vs. private sector government.

[darkbeaver]

I can see having a problem with consultants, we all run into that. I was thinking more about working people. The reason being that a contractor does not have to keep staff when there is no work or can do other jobs to keep their crew and equipment busy while government ministries do not have this option. My experience with MoF was a lot of engineers that nobody in industry would want or could afford. Mostly they changed their minds so often that you could not do a job on contract unless it was strictly unit prices or you had to work on hourly.
I doubt that highways could do their maintenance cheaper in house than by contract. Even now they demand far too much irrelevant paper work and have way too much staff to over see it. The other problem the ministries face is that they cannot fire incompetent or lazy staff.

You know the myth of private sector efficiency was dispelled at least a decade ago.It can be demonstrated and is as we speak that what is efficient to the private sector is inefficient to the public sector. The two have decidedly different metrics of efficiency. Here on the edge of the modern eras second economic abyss known as the new great depression many people give little credence to talk of private sector efficiencies. Fraud is often confused with efficiency.

 

[ironsides]

And in the case let's say of a telecommunications network, it could allow the Board of Directors to solve more problems while freeing the government to focus on other more pressing issues, with the government interfering only to protect non-consumers of the company's services, with the board of directors quite suited to protecting the consumers themselves since they would be elected by the consumers anyway.

I like this answer.

 

[JLM]

I can see having a problem with consultants, we all run into that. I was thinking more about working people. The reason being that a contractor does not have to keep staff when there is no work or can do other jobs to keep their crew and equipment busy while government ministries do not have this option. My experience with MoF was a lot of engineers that nobody in industry would want or could afford. Mostly they changed their minds so often that you could not do a job on contract unless it was strictly unit prices or you had to work on hourly.
I doubt that highways could do their maintenance cheaper in house than by contract. Even now they demand far too much irrelevant paper work and have way too much staff to over see it. The other problem the ministries face is that they cannot fire incompetent or lazy staff.

I guess there's pros and cons for both. With Hwy. maintenance I think a lot depended on the local road foreman as far as public sector performance went. Some were slack and other were very diligent and one foreman I knew in particular was very diligent (his crew hated him) but you could eat off the roads. When the mandatory things were done, he have them doing preventative stuff like checking culverts and catch basins were clear in preparation for a flood and road side garbage would be picked up and grass along the R/W would be cut more regularly. A lot of cosmetic stuff that people appreciate.

 

[taxslave]

You know the myth of private sector efficiency was dispelled at least a decade ago.It can be demonstrated and is as we speak that what is efficient to the private sector is inefficient to the public sector. The two have decidedly different metrics of efficiency. Here on the edge of the modern eras second economic abyss known as the new great depression many people give little credence to talk of private sector efficiencies. Fraud is often confused with efficiency.

Yes, the main difference being that the public sector is totally concerned with using up their entire budget so they will get more next year. They call it mad money in march when budgets have to be used or lost. Stupid system, it encourages waste of taxpayers money.

 

[AnnaG]

Yes, the main difference being that the public sector is totally concerned with using up their entire budget so they will get more next year. They call it mad money in march when budgets have to be used or lost. Stupid system, it encourages waste of taxpayers money.

Roadwork is like that around here, too. Gov't gives private contractor 15 or 20 million to maintain the roads and the private contractor spends $34.98 on maintaining the roads and pockets the other $1,499965.02
At least when it was public employees doing it, the roads were a little better.

 

[JLM]

Roadwork is like that around here, too. Gov't gives private contractor 15 or 20 million to maintain the roads and the private contractor spends $34.98 on maintaining the roads and pockets the other $1,499965.02
At least when it was public employees doing it, the roads were a little better.

When it comes to public vs. private, maybe the answer lies with which one has the most honest people.

 

[AnnaG]

Maybe. I think it has more to do with honor, integrity, and diligence, though.

 

[coldstream]

I think we had a workable system that prevailed in Canada, Europe and the U.S. to a lesser degree from 1946 to 1971 when the onslaught of economic liberalism.. free trade, monetarism (open currency speculation), privatization, laissez-faire politics took over. It's all been down hill since there.

The previous regime was characterized by a regulatory environment that over saw commerce, especially finance in the public interest.. public ownership of natural monopolies, which really only exist in communications, transportation, utilities, with huge infrastructure costs which makes duplication and competition untenable, and which were provided at cost.. fixed currency exchange rates and long term low interest rates.. progressive taxation.. a permanent regime of tariffs to ensure a sophisticated manufacturing base to our economy.

All that propelled the largest growth of equitably shared wealth in history. When that was overturned.. the economy became dominated by speculative activity, industrial decline, polarization of wealth, privatization of key economic inputs to the detriment of all but a few.

I guess i'm saying there are models that work and models that don't. But the one we have now doesn't work, and it will lead to a continued impoverishment of our society. We are just at the start of a continuous period of economic decline.

 

[barney]

I could agree to that in a system everyone needs such as a municipal system. A phone or internet system is somewhat more optional though.

Government bureaucratic services are increasingly going online and e-mail is virtually the standard form of formal communication; having an Internet connection has now become a necessity, just as the phone is (albeit a secondary necessity).

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.

It's very simple really: governments are the best at providing necessities, the private sector is best at providing non-essential commodities and services (i.e. luxuries). Government is in theory forced to work for the good of the citizenry, whereas private companies are there to maximize profits.

Or to put it even more simply:

Public sector = people's needs
Private sector = people's wants

Government programs being inefficient is generally a myth propagated by private interests, and privatization of essential services has yielded very bad results. Private power would be a good example.

Idiotic programs like the gun registry is not an indication that the private sector can do things better, but rather that government as it is now is too easily corrupted from within and without.

Both traditional conservatives and the moderate left have clearly understood that government and only government can be responsible for the wellbeing of the populace, and that regulation of the market (i.e. the private sector) is an absolute must. Anything less is to risk the destructive kind of economics Adam Smith warned against--an inevitable vulgarization of the principles of capitalism through the manipulation of government by the elite, to the detriment of the general population.

 

[barney]

Btw, nice post coldstream: good to see some people have an understanding of pre- and post-neo-liberal Canada.

 

[cdn_reality]

Government bureaucratic services are increasingly going online and e-mail is virtually the standard form of formal communication; having an Internet connection has now become a necessity, just as the phone is (albeit a secondary necessity).



It's very simple really: governments are the best at providing necessities, the private sector is best at providing non-essential commodities and services (i.e. luxuries). Government is in theory forced to work for the good of the citizenry, whereas private companies are there to maximize profits.

Or to put it even more simply:

Public sector = people's needs
Private sector = people's wants

Government programs being inefficient is generally a myth propagated by private interests, and privatization of essential services has yielded very bad results. Private power would be a good example.

Idiotic programs like the gun registry is not an indication that the private sector can do things better, but rather that government as it is now is too easily corrupted from within and without.

Both traditional conservatives and the moderate left have clearly understood that government and only government can be responsible for the wellbeing of the populace, and that regulation of the market (i.e. the private sector) is an absolute must. Anything less is to risk the destructive kind of economics Adam Smith warned against--an inevitable vulgarization of the principles of capitalism through the manipulation of government by the elite, to the detriment of the general population.

You hit the nail on the head, but privatization of some services in Alberta has not worked out very will is because of the lack of competition allowing a monopoly shared between one or very few companies. With Canada's huge distances between cities that will increase any costs associated with providing services and materials.


Too be fair to private companies it is the profits that allow them to grow and employ more.
Companies are being relied on to donate more to provide more social programs, and expected to raise to every challenge that the government fails to act on.

 

[barney]

Monopolies are generally to be avoided as it's difficult to go back once a company gets a stranglehold on that area of the market. But as long as that monopoly doesn't include necessities, it's not really that much of a problem because consumers are able to regulate prices themselves (i.e. if they find prices to be too high or lacking in quality, they just go without and no biggie--the company must adapt or lose profits).

On the other hand when the monopoly does include necessities you potentially have a massive problem on your hands; if you need something, you have to accept whatever price is set and if there's no competition to offer lower prices well, that's when government may have to intervene and regulate.

So it's better to just keep necessities out of the private sector entirely, or at least heavily regulate the industries that provide the necessity. In the end using the public service is more secure and quality of service is always better.

As for companies doing the government's job for it: yes, that's shameful.

 

[Machjo]

Monopolies are generally to be avoided as it's difficult to go back once a company gets a stranglehold on that area of the market. But as long as that monopoly doesn't include necessities, it's not really that much of a problem because consumers are able to regulate prices themselves (i.e. if they find prices to be too high or lacking in quality, they just go without and no biggie--the company must adapt or lose profits).

On the other hand when the monopoly does include necessities you potentially have a massive problem on your hands; if you need something, you have to accept whatever price is set and if there's no competition to offer lower prices well, that's when government may have to intervene and regulate.

So it's better to just keep necessities out of the private sector entirely, or at least heavily regulate the industries that provide the necessity. In the end using the public service is more secure and quality of service is always better.

As for companies doing the government's job for it: yes, that's shameful.

I'll have to disagree on this point. For the most part, I lean in favour of the private sector, But when we're dealing with a natural monopoly (Natural monopoly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), I think only two real options are woth considering:

1. Gvernmentalization (I was tempted to say 'nationalization', but that excludes provincial, territorial, and local governments), or

2. Conversion into a workers' and consumers' co-op., or

3. Conversion into a not-for-profit NGO which any citizen may join and have a vote in.

There are other options of course, but they either lack checks and balances, or are simply inefficient or unstable. For example, some have proposed a rule that all natural monopolies be required to trade on the stock market, but that doesn't provide much security if it's mostly owned by rich traders. Others have proposed heavy regulation and enforcement or splitting the company, but neither of these are stable since the enforsement or splitting of the company must occur indefinitely on a regular basis. Not particularly efficient. So in the end, it would seem that other than the 3 options above, the others are bound to cause headaches sooenr or later.

 

[Liberalman]

People are paying too much tax on frivolous programs while the infrastructure crumbles around them.

We elect government officials who are unable or unwilling to fix the problems.

All they seem to care about is raising their wages and raising their budgets.

It’s time for people to start electing better politicians to do the job right and get rid of politicians that refuse to do the job.

 

[Unforgiven]

Maybe treating private sector business as people and people as bacteria isn't the answer then. Maybe we should try and let business be business and only rein them in a little when they get too careless and start treating people like people.

 

[ironsides]

The goverment has always done so well, look how they controlled Social Security, by fist making sure the money was protected, then saying lets just borrow a little and give them a I.O.U. . Now there blaming the people who paid into it for the problem, give us a break. Give S.S. a stimulus (replacing what you borrowed) and it would be all fixed. Want another example of how well we can trust goverment to hold down costs. Look at public schools for instance, ever hear of them saying "it is ok, we don't need any additional money this year? Goverment programs mean more taxes not less.

 

[Machjo]

The goverment has always done so well, look how they controlled Social Security, by fist making sure the money was protected, then saying lets just borrow a little and give them a I.O.U. . Now there blaming the people who paid into it for the problem, give us a break. Give S.S. a stimulus (replacing what you borrowed) and it would be all fixed. Want another example of how well we can trust goverment to hold down costs. Look at public schools for instance, ever hear of them saying "it is ok, we don't need any additional money this year? Goverment programs mean more taxes not less.

Would that include the military?

 

[ironsides]

Would that include the military?

The military gets whatever they need to do a job, if not whoever is responsible is out either way problem is corrected. The military was never meant to save money. No ones is.