DIYbanter - View Single Post

John Beardmore

In message .com,
writes
John Beardmore wrote:
In message .com,
writes
John Beardmore wrote:

I've nothing against a little 'evolution in action', but I'd hate to
create short termist, hire and fire, 'quarterly profits' culture that
was focussed on minimal cost, minimal provision, and minimum
environmental standards.

Andy answered this pretty good.

I'll judge that my self thanks. Your accolades mean little.

But lets look from another angle.

If we look at the reality of free markets, there is a spread of
standards. There is everything from cheap and basic (eg MG metro) to
sumptuous luxury (eg Rolls Royce, Ferrari). There are also a smaller
number of companies serving smaller or niche areas (eg Citroen 2CV,
skoda, Landrover, smartcar etc)

So what people purchase is more or less what they want. Its not perfect
because there arent infinite choices, but there are core reasons
covered in any book on free markets why its better than 100% state
control. You only need look at Russia in the 80s to see what a state
controlled command economy gets you, and thats what we have with LAs
and garbage collection.

Point by point...

Warm generalisations, but when you say "why its better than 100% state
control" you need to say in which respects it's better, because it may
not be better in all respects, and different respects are given
different weights by each of us.

but I'd hate to create short termist

well, companies only stay in business if they address the medium and
long term issues too. Short termists dont stick around.

Hmm... Many companies I work with won't invest in environmental
improvements unless they can get a pay back in under two years,
sometimes in as little as 6 months. I wish they wouldn't stick around.

hire and fire,

hiring and firing is done on the basis of what staff the business needs
to fulfil its services, and on whether the staff are competent. Compare
with LAs where incompetents are usually either allowed to stay in the
post or moved to another post.

Can happen I know !

So I wonder why you'd hate less
incompetence and less cost waste.

I certainly don't endorse either, but it is important to be fair to both
parties.

'quarterly profits' culture

every business needs to streamline itself financially. LAs dont need
to, its why theyre so efficient. Again I wonder why you'd actively want
such inefficiency and excess costs.

Well

a) they aren't businesses,

and

b) as far as I can see they have pretty tight internal financial
controls.

was focussed on minimal cost,

why do you want a service at a price higher than it need be to fulfil
all the requirements? Do you enjoy adding 0s onto your council tax
cheques?

Not at all, but for example, I want

'buildings made to last'

not

'buildings made to win the next election that won't
be affordable to heat in 30 years'.

minimal provision,

private companies provide whatever level of provision the customer
wants - and since there are several companies, each purchaser can have
a lot closer to what they want than with the command economy.

Depends. If the customer is an LA, they should be able to specify
exactly what they and by way of a building or service.

and minimum environmental standards.

In the freeish marketplace, required environmental standards are laid
down by law.

Which is not an aspect of capitalism !

That aspect of business is controlled by central
givernment, not by businesses. So service providers cant fall below
those and realistically expect to stay in business and out of the
courts.

As long as the law is enforced, which it seldom is all that well.

Companies can choose to improve further on those standards,

Yes.

and
many do.

Though much of it is greenwash.

Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore