Whoops, sorry.
> 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.
>
But it is important to differentiate between financial and social costs. "efficency" is probably the
most-used rationale behind privatization. Trying to claim efficiency for our side is admirable, but
extremely dangerous; the word is already generally accepted as meaning "cost-efficent." I've
found that a much more useful politicizing tool is to challenge efficiency's place in the priority
list. It is not impractical to suggest that ecnomiesxshould work for peole, not the other way
around. A social program is by definition in place ot provide a service which should, in my
opinion, be universally accessible - regardless of the costs. The real battle is convincing people
that such programs are not only essential and possible, but can be provided at relatively little
cost - to the individual. The cost should be shared by society.
These are not idealistic notions, but ideas with lots of practical history in various countries nad times. The myth that social programs should and must be answerable to a bottom-line analysis is the dangerous idea here.
and Doyle Saylor wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
> Jessica replies to the one of the blizzard of interesting Sawicky
> commentaries:
>
> "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.
> Doyle
> It is not a ridiculous point to make. Efficiencies is one of those
> stupid propaganda points the capitalist are always making that socialism
> is inefficient. In many cases government administration of programs is
> much cheaper. Just compare them to charities. When working people
> swallow the line about inefficiencies we get the blame. Better to
> understand why things cost the way they do. In addition if we won, we
> would have to be practical about how we do things. We can't spend on
> something just because we don't care how much money it takes to make
> something happen. Rather we want to have a sense of the social costs,
> and the social benefits of programs. If you are poor in an undeveloped
> economy you must make do with the limited resources at hand. You can't
> afford drugs that alleviate some aspects of aids, even though your
> government is socialist.
I agree with your statements, but disagree that the way to fight the picture painted of inefficient socialism is to assert that it is efficient - or can be.
> Doyle
> I hear the cry of despair in your words, that we would do things with
> our own interests upper most the devil with capitalist benchmarks, but
> these subjects are complicated.
That's pretty condescending.
Enrique Diaz-Alvarez wrote:
> Jessica wrote:
> > Efficiency for whom?
>
> For the participants. Out of every dollar paid in by contributors, more
> than 99 cents ends up in a recipients pocket.
Now this is better, in my opinion, because Enrique is redefining the concept of effieincy - the
point of my original post.
<snip>
> > Public sector efficiency should be based on adequate
> > delivery of services, regardless of cost.
>
> Absolutely not. Public sector efficiency should be measured as effect on
> general welfare relative to cost.
Well, maybe - this close to waht I meant; but I would argue that cost should take a very low position on the priority list when it comes to evaluating "efficiency" in the public sector.
No, on second thought I still think it has no place in that consideration whatsoever - at least in countries like the U.S. and Canada. There isplenty of wealth in these countries.
Jess