'The private sector is superior'. Time to move on from this old dogma
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/25/private-sector-superiority-mythbuster***SNIP
Healthcare is typically much more expensive in countries with heavily privatised systems. As the figure below demonstrates, in 2008, the United States, with predominantly private healthcare, spent around $7,000 per person on health. The NHS spent around half that sum per person, yet, judging by outcomes such as life expectancy at birth, the NHS did just as well.
Some of the UK's largest private care home providers effectively bankrupted themselves and had to be saved by public intervention. Similarly, the banking system – which underpins our economy, and whose demands for financial returns determine the broader shape and nature of the economy – is only standing today due to monumental public backing after near complete failure of its investment model. Private finance is much more expensive than direct public investment: the cost of capital under the heavily used private finance initiative was estimated by the Financial Times in 2011 to have added £20bn to the taxpayers' bill (paywalled link).
Of course, the choice a society has to meet its needs is not between just the state or private sector. The "core economy" describes work done in homes, neighbourhoods and communities that goes unpaid, but upon which wellbeing, resilience and conviviality of society largely depends. Costed at even a basic rate, the value of that work would vastly outstrip spending on formal care. Voluntary, mutual, cooperative and social enterprise models all represent important alternatives to either traditional private sector or state provided goods and services. Although more recently lip service has been paid to the idea that the provision of services should be opened up to these kinds of providers, in reality it is the large private suppliers – the likes of Serco, Atos and Capita – who are set to replace direct provision by the state.
Private sector dynamism versus public sector inefficiency has been the dominant political narrative of the last few decades. It has supplied the excuse for repeated, one-directional upheaval in many of the services that we rely on, and which are essential to our quality of life. At best, evidence of private sector superiority is missing. At worst, such lazy assumptions can cost lives as well as money. The public sphere in its broadest sense can be more efficient, more effective and better for human dignity. That is not to argue against innovation. On the contrary, innovation is desperately needed to reintroduce the human element to how things are run.
= new reply since forum marked as read
the major players in the private sector do not have to agree with that. In fact, they don't and it seems like they won't. Billions and billions, (trillions all total) of dollars stand behind them and money is the power that fuels the neo-Feudalism approach. The power is the money and for us it represents a future that is a "rent to live" existence -- be homeless or die are the other options.
It is not hard to extrapolate on a wholly corporately owned and controlled world because, other than the facade of PR that both media and government expertly provide, major corporations have control of and provide much of what we call a "modern" life. Do you bite the hand that owns the food bowl?
Not only do our laws protect the actions, those laws keeping morphing into further protection and lack of regulation like some Libertarian wet dream come true. Considering that the power and influence rests in the hands of "major shareholders" wielding vast amounts of influence and control, (the .01%) how much longer do they need to retain this facade before the props dissolve and we see the brick wall at the back of the theater?
While things are far more complex these days in an economic sense, a few rich and powerful families behind a corporate veil are managing to get more of what they want and do not seem content with less than all. So, even if it means a diminished quality of life for all creatures on this planet, or complete extinction, their drives and impulses linked with incredibly sophisticated, manipulative public relations, et al, will prevail, especially if we feel compelled to continue our participation, be it knowingly or by willful ignorance.
We are leaving a legacy of crap to future generations and the eco-sphere. Techno-fixes are probably not going to do much except fine better ways to sequester the wealthy and their cohorts and keep them comfortable while the Surfs hit the skids.
