12/11/01 8:43:48 PM, "William S. Lear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tuesday, December 11, 2001 at 18:04:18 (- 0500) Max Sawicky writes: >>The Gov would have to organize a competitive bidding system, . . . > >Why have bidding? Why not just set up a public company that hires >staff to run things. The "board" would be publicly accountable.> mbs: fine but that's a different animal -- a public enterprise, the same as nationalization. Perelman was talking about contracting out. >Perhaps simply owning the intellectual property of the company and >having companies freely use it to produce things (with strings, of >course) would be the best. No need for contracts, competitive bids. mbs: the intellectual prop is most appropriate for public ownership. the commodity-type manufacture lends itself to contracting, though even so you need a fairly sophisticated arrangement to get the best deal. All the fuss about the vacinnation contracts indicates some of the sort of problems that can come up. Gov wants the cheapest price, but in a decreasing cost context this favors the big boys. Little boys complain, others point out using a sole source has other risks, thin market means few bidders and questions about whether the lowest costs are attained, political interference, etc. etc. >play unless you pay us handsome profits"? This is where a public >company (really, industry) would come in handy. mbs: agreed. even pro-privatization types of the more sophisticated sort say the Gov should always reserve part of production to a public entity that can be ramped up if the contractors screw up. problem here is in a perceived emergency there isn't time to start up a new govt enterprise, especially in an era when ideology says "if you can find it in the Yellow Pages, you don't need public employees and agencies." I'm not exaggerating. This is literally a test used in Washington to evaluate the potential for privatization. Talk about the Stone Age. mbs
