Actually Enrique wrote about the 3rd rationale first, and I responded agreeably.
>Max Sawicky wrote:
>>
>> >How about a third rationale, efficiency? SS administrative overhead is
less than 1% of yearly inflows. The typical no-load mutual fund charges
around 2% of _assets_ in fees, which would turn out to somewhere between 20%
and 30% of yearly inflows (if I remember correctly, that's roughly how much
the Chielan finance industry skims off the retiment system there).
>> >
>> >Have we got to the point were it is simply not possible to talk about
public sector efficiency?
>
Now Jessica says:
>Efficiency for whom? Efficiency is a word used to describe
>economic systems, i.e. it's efficient if it continues to make (more and
more) money. Public sector efficiency should be based on adequate delivery
of services, regardless of cost. The idea that socialised services should
conform to private sector benchmarks, SET by the private sector, is
ridiculous.>>
I don't think its either good policy or good politics to maintain that cost is irrelevant or even secondary.
Fact is that public sector can be more efficient than the private sector in many instances. We hurt our own cause by conceding 'efficiency' to the other side.
MBS