XPost: soc.culture.baltics, soc.culture.czecho-slovak, soc.culture.russian
XPost: soc.culture.nordic, soc.culture.baltics
From: anton.usenet@gmail.com
David Friedman kirjoitti:
> In article ,
> Anton wrote:
>> I agree with this view. It also proves public service is not a typical
>> open market sector where supply and demand, and price and value adjust
>> so that everything "naturally" falls into its place.
> I'm not sure what "public service" means here. Most of the things
> government provide are also provided on the private market--medical
> services, schooling, insurance, postal delivery, protection against
> crime. For such things, the options aren't limited to "government
> provision with government production" or "government provision with some
> functions outsourced to private firms."
In most societies the bulk of schooling and protection against crime is
provided as public service. These sectors fill a broader purpose and
other aspects than economics take precedence (like availability).
> There's also the option of
> ordinary private provision. That option doesn't raise the particular
> problem I discussed. And it's that option that represents real
> privatization.
If my english comprehension is good enough to understand what you mean I
have no idea how private provision is adapted to a railway system or
cleaning of schools in such a manner that open competition is the
vehicle to better the quality and reducing the costs.
Do you mean by "private provision" that parents of students can choose
themselves which company will do the cleaning of the school, or that the
indivudual train passanger can choose over railway company X and railway
company Z to travel from destination A to B?
Perhaps you meant that many privately owned schools offer the same
service and allow the customers to choose the provider that offers the
best quality/terms?
--
Anton
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
