Intra/Inter - was Inet-II

Sat Oct 12 01:49:13 UTC 1996

> From: Vadim Antonov <avg at quake.net>
> >  Maybe.  More likely it's a tool to give Higher Education
> >  institutions a QOS independant from the commercial world (also cheaper).
>
> Cheaper?  Have you _ever_ seen anything done by the government that is
> cheaper after you count all hidden costs?

Actually, yes, there are quite a few examples....

Delivery of all social services has clearly been shown to be cheaper
when done by government, when costs of fund collection, advertisement,
and administration are included.  Private charity is always more
expensive, even when partly done with volunteer labor.  The best numbers
I have at hand are 3% government (US Food Stamps) versus 17% private
(United Way) for administrative costs to delivered services.  And when
advertising and fund collection are added, many non-profit "charities"
spend upwards of 50% on overhead!

Another outstanding example is Public Radio and Television.  That has
been eroding as the government share of payments has been decreased, and
overhead has increased due to the need for attracting advertising
"sponsors".  Once upon a time, there was virtually no non-production
overhead.  Now, with increased commercialization, there is a need to
hire public relations and fundraising and grant writing personnel.
Meanwhile, the hourly content has been diminished to insert the
advertising.  A classic documented case of the inefficiency of
privatization....

Single payer medical services has also been shown to be cheaper than
"insurance" systems, especially when advertisement and administration
costs are counted.  True, they have a tendency to reduce "choice", but
so do the private commercial US HMOs, whether profit or non-profit.

Centralized government recyling also comes to mind.  Private commercial
firms have more administrative overhead costs than goverment programs,
even when governments are handling the fee collection (taxes).  Private
firms simply pay their administrators more, have a higher administrator
to worker ratio, and have "profits" to distribute to shareholders.  And
far more of the waste stream ends up in land-fills, simply because it's
still cheaper (in many parts of this country) than recycling.  So, when
the _goal_ is recycling, the government programs are far more cost
effective for reaching that goal.

More importantly to the case at hand, government use built the recycling
waste stream to a point where commercial efforts could be mounted, and
built a chain of suppliers and consumers.

This is similar to the Internet experience.  Goverment use built the net
to a point where commercial activity could occur.

We already had commercial telecommunications companies; they gave us
X.25 ...  and now, ATM.

> Aw, how cute.  Sounds like first-grader's taking about Granddad Lenin.
> Surely smart grown-up people up will show us the Only And True Way,
> they sure know better how to spend our money.
>
I'm afraid your emotional bias is showing.  You are responsible for the
government you have, and it spends its money exactly as you permit it.
If not, you have the right to attempt to change it.  Depends on how
self-importantly you think of your own life....

WSimpson at UMich.edu
    Key fingerprint =  17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26  DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
BSimpson at MorningStar.com
    Key fingerprint =  2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3  59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2