http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/29/opinion/29brooks.html?
Interesting. There does seem a problem with the political fad of privatized. One might think it conservative to apply resources in such a manner as to promote the greatest productivity, productivity for the common good and a balanced snse of leasure. Privatization clearly does not.
The other side of the argument aserts that the inefficiencies of government run enterprise and corruption favor the placement of complex services in the private sector where competition and the profit motive will create greater efficiency.
I recall Pres. Eisenhouer's post war buildout of public highways as a most successful stimulation to a lagging economy. There are clearly sectors of public need that are served best by a planed egalitarian distribution of the low cost common necessity. Such destribution results in greater growth than if that resource were limited by private supply and demand. The common public distribution seems just common sense, axiomatic, but the political expedient of privitization shifts the cost to the public without their notice, indeed with their blessing. Ah, but have we not, instead, a hidden and strongly regressive taxation?
What is it that polititions do not understand about the ill effects of these hidden taxations? How much, again, is the cost of college tuition? So, the children to whom the cost is shed did not vote on the question; they were not old enough.
Interesting. There does seem a problem with the political fad of privatized. One might think it conservative to apply resources in such a manner as to promote the greatest productivity, productivity for the common good and a balanced snse of leasure. Privatization clearly does not.
The other side of the argument aserts that the inefficiencies of government run enterprise and corruption favor the placement of complex services in the private sector where competition and the profit motive will create greater efficiency.
I recall Pres. Eisenhouer's post war buildout of public highways as a most successful stimulation to a lagging economy. There are clearly sectors of public need that are served best by a planed egalitarian distribution of the low cost common necessity. Such destribution results in greater growth than if that resource were limited by private supply and demand. The common public distribution seems just common sense, axiomatic, but the political expedient of privitization shifts the cost to the public without their notice, indeed with their blessing. Ah, but have we not, instead, a hidden and strongly regressive taxation?
What is it that polititions do not understand about the ill effects of these hidden taxations? How much, again, is the cost of college tuition? So, the children to whom the cost is shed did not vote on the question; they were not old enough.
Comments