In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-12-04 02:54:50 +0000, John Beardmore said:

Obviously, one would hope that you wouldn't seek to reduce the
choice of others who do not have the same order of priorities in
terms of the impact of additional choices of supplier.
I think there should be a debate about it. Many of our choices are
curtailed in the interests of others. I don't think waste disposal is
precious an issue that it should be out of the question that a
democratically elected state make that choice. YMMV.

It does, because the state, and it's local level implementation does
not demonstrate any great skill in that area

The rubbish is collected. What more do you want ?

You want a free market, but this seems to be more to do with your
personal ideology than any particular lack of skill.


If you would like to introduce a social transaction element into
your agreement, then hopefully you can find a supplier to include
it. Quite what that would be - who knows.?
There is one there already I think. That you have no sense of it
comes as little surprise.
Oh I do. For the moment, the supplier is offering the service
that I want (although his choice is limited) to one thing which is
not good).
Secondly, I would prefer to negotiate my own deal rather than
letting the LA do so for me and applying its markup.

Your life really must lack important things to worry about !!

There's actually very little that I *worry* about.

Indeed.


Not sure about the notion of 'mark up' here.

I've explained it clearly enough. It buys the service from an outside
(normally private) supplier. It adds administrative cost in spades

If you want to prove that, get numerate about it.


and sells it to the customer. The administration adds no value,

A bold yet spurious assumption...


so the customer might as well deal direcly with the supplier and cut
out the middle man. Clear enough?

Clear, simple, simplistic, but not in my view correct.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore