Privitization of Government

Subject: RE: Privitization of Government
From: Big Mick
Date: 19 Jun 08 - 10:32 AM

I'm just a simple country boy, and some of these high falootin' concepts just confuse me. But it does stand to reason that the numbers of dollars available are finite. Adding in a profit motive means that money that would have been available to provide services is now going to the corporation. That problem is just as bad as the unchecked bureaucracy running amok. It is simply a different dragon. The reason is that the profit becomes the key, not the services. It is what drives the beast. And not just profit, but the goal becomes maximizing the profit, which results in fewer services. I have seen this thing where the "for profit" hires minimum wage workers who have no motive of their own, the services deteriorate and the cost over time goes up. The corporation makes their money but overall one had a loss of service. One example was the park reservation system in Michigan.

All this is not to say that we can go back to unchecked, and unaccountable government bureaucracy. But I agree with Frank Hamilton. The whole thing is a false predicate. It is based on the lie that their is nothing that government can do that private industry can't do better. How many examples you want? Taken a look at trucking since deregulation. Almost any of the regulatory groups that have gone on the honor system once enforcement was removed.

Mick

Subject: RE: Privitization of Government
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 19 Jun 08 - 05:17 AM

"privatization of publicly funded human services has been, and will continue to be an absolute travesty."

Hmmm ... there's a tunnel under Sydney Harbour built by 'joint Public/private cooperation' ... The Association of Architects ran a series of ads about 'the importance of numbers' - one of which involved footage of very few cars entering the tunnel cause people felt the charges were too high...

Subject: RE: Privitization of Government
From: Janie
Date: 19 Jun 08 - 12:21 AM

I can say from personal experience that privatization of publicly funded human services has been, and will continue to be an absolute travesty.

Subject: RE: Privitization of Government
From: Goose Gander
Date: 19 Jun 08 - 12:17 AM

The problem with the term 'fascism' is that it has lost any specific meaning and now stands for anything the user of the term considers 'bad' . . . and this is not simply the case on the political left. Right-wing idiots and assholes use the term loosely to slander anyone they deem 'bad' . . . Islamofascism, anyone? And dont' get me started on Jonah Goldberg. Christopher Hitchens? I'd love to meet that fuck in a bar somewhere. And not because I'm looking for a date (no, that was NOT homophobia) but simply because I believe chicken-shit warmongers should be called out (in public) whenever possible.

Subject: RE: Privitization of Government
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 11:46 PM

Yes, that's exactly what it is Poppa Gator. It's creeping fascism, the purpose of which is to centralize political, social, financial, media, and military power ever more in the hands of an untouchable international elite....and in the name of private enterprise and liberty and freedom!

It is the very antithesis of what liberty and freedom is all about.

Subject: RE: Privitization of Government
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 11:25 PM

Why, Robin, by gosh, you are absolutely right!! That IS funny!! I hadn't noticed that at all, but it is a real "hoot", as the colonials say. A knee-slapper!!

Why do you suppose the others are not also laughing heartily?


A

Subject: RE: Privitization of Government
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 11:16 PM

"Without a measure of constraint on the part of elected officials, the most powerful and most diversified multinational corporations can do pretty much whatever they want, with no regard for anyone except"

Funny, this is starting to sound like what happened when the King and the Barons and the Church, owned and ran everything... :-)

Subject: RE: Privitization of Government
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 06:27 PM

All I gotta say is...






























...privatize this!!!

B~

Subject: RE: Privatization of Government
From: Stringsinger
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 06:26 PM

PoppaGator,

Trying to research when he wrote it. He kinda' nailed it I think.
Don't know how it sings but it says volumes.

Subject: RE: Privitization of Government
From: PoppaGator
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 06:13 PM

How long ago did Jack Blanchard write that?

He provides an very precise picture of what's actually happening in the early 21st century, right down to the shrinking bags of coffee and the particle-board construction techniques.

Michael: Your point is well taken, and I certainly understand that you're not arguing in favor of Italian fascism.

I might take one or two steps back from my previously stated positions, but not all the way back ~ my understanding of the term "fascism" is obviously more inclusive than yours, and I feel absolutely no obligation to adhere strictly to Mussolini's concept.

Let me defend my decision to cast part of the discussion in terms of "theory and practice." Government can take over the functions of corporate business only in theory, just as Pope Leo's "specially established organizations or boards" and Karl Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat" can exist only in theory. In practice, the businessman's golden rule always prevails: He who has the gold rules. And let's not forget Burke, either: "Power corrupts, and absolute poer corrupts absolutely."

Without a measure of constraint on the part of elected officials, the most powerful and most diversified multinational corporations can do pretty much whatever they want, with no regard for anyone except their largest shareholders ~ the grossly overpaid CEOs, the board members, and perhaps a few more favored individuals. Not the general public, certainly, and not their employees and customers either. "Owners" who hold tiny shares as part of a mutual-funds pension package don't really get much, either ~ they may make a few extra bucks in dividends, but that hardly offsets what they're losing as consumer/citizens.

Subject: RE: Privitization of Government
From: Stringsinger
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 06:06 PM

I can downsize (not "fire") all the employees I want,
and call it efficiency.
I can ship jobs overseas
and blame it on the unions.

My governments can spend all they want
as long as my companies and I get all we want.
I can use the plural "governments"
because I would ow no allegiance to any one country or state,
the USA bein just one my by branch offices.

I think my true stroke of genius is this:
Turn the middle class, the poor, and the semi-poort
against each other.

All ethnic groups can blame each other for their problems,
The unemployed can hate the homeless and the immigrants.
The middle class can blame the Welfare recipients,
while ;my gang steals the real money.
Hate is such a wonderful diversion!

None of them would be looking my way; at all.
I would be above suspicion.
In fact, they'd look to me for leadership, wisdom and mercy.


(Free-market anyone?)

Stringsinger.

Subject: RE: Privitization of Government
From: Capt. E
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 06:02 PM

I don't think fascism is what is going on here. We are not talking about the supremacy of the state, but a redirection of government into the private sector for the purpose of eliminating public accountability. It's effective result is to line the pockets of those people who have the closest connections to those who run Federal or State Govt. One way to counter this is to simply reduce the size of government and thus reduce the money available. Then we get into the question of the true function of government.
What would you rather do, pay taxes etc that fund the construction and maintainance of a highway and drive on it at no cost or pay a toll to a private foreign owned company who was given that same public money to build it. Look at this lovely idea pushed by our governor here in Texas: http://transtexascorridor.blogspot.com/

The Trans Texas Corridor is a prime example of privitization.

Subject: RE: Privitization of Government
From: Stringsinger
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 06:00 PM

Another way to up profits
(which of course, is God's will),
is to fire most of my Customer Service and Support staff
so that that my marks, (I mean customers),
will have to wait on the line 40 minutes
to tell their problems to my computer.
I never did like hearing customer's complaints.
They should just hand over the money and shut up.

Subject: RE: Privitization of Government
From: Stringsinger
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 05:55 PM

Privatization of government is the assumption that corporations can do the work better but there is no evidence for this that is credible. We see the deterioration of government agencies by corporate meddling (the CEO's are writing the laws) and the citizen is caught
holding the bag. Schools and infrastructure crumble, health care is suffering, invasion money in Iraq is going down a "black hole" of waste and corruption (due to the privatization of the military through Blackwater, Dynasys, Triple Canopy, Halliburton and KBR.

A lot of this applies to folk music which is basically a form of expression that defies the music business (which is a form of privatization of music) and functions independently
through an alternative cultural expression that is not restricted by "the bottom line".
In the Thirties, the root of protest or alternative music in song started with groups like
the Almanac Singers, Woody Guthrie, Leadbelly, Josh White, early Burl Ives, Tom Glazer,
and others. Woody may have been our first pro-environmentalist songwriter depicting the plight of the "dust bowl". "Talking Union" told the story of the corruption of privatization. Bob Miller, a songwriter and publisher early in the Thirties wrote of "The Rich Man and the Poor Man". "Brother Can You Spare a Dime" touched the nerve of what happens to country when privatization reigns unchecked. Marc Blitzstein warned that because of privatization of government and its disregard for taxpayers that "The Cradle Will Rock". We have reached a similar time now. Racism, a by-product of corporate
control, since it excludes those who have been economically deprived by "special interests" in Washington, (K Street) was addressed by Irving Berlin in "SupperTime".
Even Cole Porter dipped his toe into the water and came up with "Love For Sale".
The reaction to the privatization of government exploded into a plethora of artist expressions in song. Orson Welles, Leonard Bernstein, The Group Theater, Harold Rome and Yip Harburg all contributed to the denouncing of the "bottom line" and its disregard for society's welfare.

Here, in the words of Jack Blanchard:

If I were king..
a captain of industry
a leader of the people
and wanted to stay king of my hill,
here's what I would probably do:

I would charge the consumersmore and give them less.
If I couldn't raise prices fast enough,
I'd put merchandise like coffee in smaller containers
withut lowering the price.

The masses have become used to creeping inflation,
so I would creep my prices up at a respectable rate.
It doesn't mean I have to give them anything more.

I would always think of the little people as "the masses".
It's more pleasant to rob those I don't see as real epople.


I would build them half-million--dollar houses
made of particle board, screening, and vinyl stucco,
and hang them together with staples.
It's become tradition.   (more to follow on next post)

Subject: RE: Privitization of Government
From: Goose Gander
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 05:40 PM

This is not a case of theory v. practice, but of defining terms. The term corporation (referring to a business entity) and corporatist (referring to a way of organizing society) are linguistically related but mean different things.

Here's a cut and dry political definition of corporatism from answers.com . . . .

And from that article, here's a bit about the corporatist idea:

"Although the modern debate started in the mid-1970s, the idea of corporatism has a long history. Guilds or corporations were important institutions in mediaeval life, but attracted little attention from political theorists. Conscious reflection about the potential prescriptive value of corporatist arrangements really started in the last quarter of the nineteenth century. In the papal encyclical Rerum Novarum (1891), Leo XIII tackled the problems of the poverty of the working classes, the development of trade unions, and the prevalent 'spirit of revolutionary change'. It was argued that class conflict was not inevitable, but that capital and labour were mutually dependent. Noting the general growth of associative action, Leo XIII argued that problems such as working conditions and health and safety could be dealt with by specially established organizations or boards, with the state sanctioning and protecting such arrangements. The object of proceeding in this way was 'in order to supersede undue interference on the part of the State'. This concern with limiting direct state intervention, and finding alternative forms of state-sanctioned associative action, has remained a central theme of the corporatist debate. The association between corporatism and Catholic social theory has also remained a strong one."

I hope it is clear that I am NOT defending Italian Fascism, or even advocating for corporatism per se, but rather pointing out that Mussolini's term "corporate state" is often misunderstood.

Subject: RE: Privitization of Government
From: PoppaGator
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 05:17 PM

Fascism-as-theory does not necessarily correspond exactly to fascism in practice. In the real world, the most likely (if not the only possible) manner in which State and Corporation can come to merge with each other is for strongly established corporate entities to become incrasingly involved in government.

And of course these powerful entities support "laissez-faire" policies only when they coincide with their own interests; when there are government incentives, tax-breaks, exceptions to regulation, etc., to be had, they'll grab 'em every time.

Speaking of theory-vs-practice, consider the vast difference between communism in theory and in practice. In theory, the workers rise up and take over (dictatorial) control of the "means of production" and, thereby, of their own lives. In practice, whoever assumes those dictatorial powers immediately ceases to be a noble and humble worker, becoming exactly the kind of self-interested tyrant who ran the previous regime.

Subject: RE: Privitization of Government
From: Goose Gander
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 04:45 PM

Mussolini's concept of the Corporate State referred to different groups or interests within a nation (social, cultural and professional, as well as economic), not necessarily to business corporations. The concept has more to do with institutions comparable to medieval guilds than to Microsoft or Exxon, and the concept is closer to syndicalism than traditional conservatism (Il Duce came out of the left, after all). Mussolini, in fact, supported state control of the economy over laissez faire capitalism. Loyalty would be to the state, rather than to social class, ending conflict within society (or so ran the argument). "Everything within the state, nothing against the state, nothing outside the state." Benito Mussolini.

Subject: RE: Privitization of Government
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 04:28 PM

Hey, neat... How'd you get my initials to flash across the screen in that nifty red?

Subject: RE: Privitization of Government
From: GUEST,K. Friedman
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 04:21 PM

RE: The "privitization of government." I'm wholeheartedly in favor of it. First we could dissolve both houses of Congress and establish a Privy Council which would meet each morning, around 7:00 AM, in any available privy. More would get done in any one of those sessions than happens in a month of congressional hearings. All those execrable riders and earmarks would simply disappear into the void. I say, make sure the windows are small, limit the "paperwork" and keep the ventilation poor. That'll keep things to a tight schedule. They can't do too much damage when they are not in session. I wouldn't worry about the current state of affairs, however. Like the doctor told the man who swallowed his watch, "This, too, shall pass."

Subject: RE: Privitization of Government
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 04:18 PM

Aw, Poppa!! A man who knows his etymology. It is astonishing to me, when I mentiont he creeping fascism of the last eight years, how blank people sometimes go.

A

Subject: RE: Privitization of Government
From: PoppaGator
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 04:12 PM

Couldn't agree more.

There's a name for this phenomenon: fascism.

Whenever any dares to use this particular f-word in reference to the ongoing corporate takeover of our government, many people get offended and reply that nobody's setting up death camps, etc., ~ as if anyone were being accused of Nazism, which is something else again.

Fascism simply assumes that government should function to serve the interests of the most powerful corporate interests ~ as if they needed any extra help, over and above the substantial economic power they already possess.

Sound familiar?

Subject: RE: Privitization of Government
From: Barry Finn
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 04:11 PM

There is no more line to go below, or do I just not see it anymore?

Barry

Subject: RE: Privitization of Government
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 04:10 PM

I think there may be some things better accomplished through privitization, but the rush to privatize indiscriminately has had really poor unintended consequences -- partly because the actual values (such as visibility, and command-line responsibility, and moral sense of duty) are minimized in the transaction.

A

Subject: RE: Privitization of Government
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 04:03 PM

Surely this should be below the line?

It certainly is a danger, as privatisation in the UK is a threat to the fabric of the state. Whether it is the greatest single danger to democracy is another question.

Subject: Privitization of Government
From: Capt. E
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 03:50 PM

The selling out of our Government to private concerns is the single greatest danger to our democracy I know of. Not only does it increase the cost of government (a private company needs to make a profit), it also links perfectly with the Bush administration's desire for secrecy and privacy and is the opposite of "open" and "free". When a governmental function is passed on to a private corporate concern, all it's financial and ethical decisions are hidden from public scrutiny. It completely bypasses the Open Records Act: a private citizen cannot look at a private corporation's records. Look at all the private companies making billions off the Iraq war, filling functions that normally would have been done by the various branches of the military. What ever happened to the Quartermaster Corps? Most of that is now privatized and is costing us billions more than necessary.