| Revision as of 09:29, 26 March 2006 edit172 (talk | contribs)24,875 edits →My re-wording ...asking for all comments please← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 15:40, 10 July 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,240 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] |
| (262 intermediate revisions by 76 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talkheader}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{American English}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C| |
|
|
{{WikiProject Business|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Economics|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=mid|libertarianism=yes|libertarianism-importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Annual readership}} |
|
|
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|archiveprefix=Talk:Privatization/Archive|format= %%i|age=2160|<!--90 days-->|header={{automatic archive navigator}}|maxarchsize=100000|minkeepthreads=4|numberstart=3}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== We should put the opinions from IGM Forum European Economists == |
|
{{expansion}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Absolute Majority agreed about Privatization in Eastern Europe which was strong Positive |
|
|
Some economists wrote down |
|
|
"this is No brainer" I think this source is useful |
|
|
http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/privatization-in-central-and-eastern-europe ] (]) 12:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Privatization unquestionably allowed corruption to take greater hold in eastern europe. The mechanism is obvious: while state capitalism implied concentrated corruption intranationally, privatization allowed corruption to flow into these countries internationally. |
|
==Archives== |
|
|
|
:Eastern europe is not filled with miracle economies like the spanish miracle or the chinese miracle. The contrast should be obvious, and it would have been famous otherwise. ] (]) 15:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
they lies if they sad. The boss is in the jsilhe can't be injail Because ittreind of then.boss and boy soliestheylessonthem instead oofme Because it my power ] (]) 11:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. |
|
|
If further archiving is needed, see ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:the man's are jelouse all of them.that got gurus and that don't have gurus so liesabout boss helping themfor4000peoplesthat staying with my enemies soliesabdhoy foessamething behind my back no body injail lies it theirfreind ] (]) 11:03, 30 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
'''Previous discussions:''' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Why no mention of how privatization is imposed upon poorer countries? == |
|
*] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a specific mechanism created by IMF, World Bank and USA to impose privatizations on the poorer countries, it even has an article here in wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/Washington_Consensus |
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, why is there no mention here? This article is like as if privatization is a matter of taste. It's not! ] (]) 22:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Some distinctions to be worked towards == |
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously this will be a controversial page, as the Talk history shows. I think it would help to structure the page more around the principle that the basic pro-privatization argument is that any social costs are outweighed by increased efficiency, and the basic anti argument that often any increase in efficiency is either outweighed by social costs, or an illusion (costs are externalised not reduced, and/or services reduced). |
|
|
|
|
|
Also there are some distinctions or categorisations that might be worked towards, and if done properly it would make the pro/anti arguments clearer. We might try to avoid an overly-technical language ('merit goods' etc) as the basis for classification, though maybe the terms should be used/explained somewhere on the page. First, post-communist privatization is clearly a category of its own - that's why we have the term 'transition economies' (a term not currently in Misplaced Pages AFAIK). Second, privatization of companies operating in (more or less) standard competitive markets. Third, natural monopolies. Fourth, public services. Each of these categories raises different aspects of the basic issues, and explaining the pro/anti arguments specifically in each will be much more helpful. The general pro/anti argument sections could then hopefully be reduced to summaries, and mention some of the broader issues (eg cultural impact such as concerns about the marketization of society). |
|
|
|
|
|
There might also be a specific section on economic/social/regulatory context - in particular the effects of privatizing where there are weak institutions, and what kind of institutions can be considered 'strong'. There could be some mention of links with liberalisation/deregulation here, especially in terms of how the order of economic reforms can affect their success. Finally, I think the list of privatizations should have its own page - here it's mostly a distraction from the arguments, and is very partial anyway. A summary would suffice and be less misleading by omission. |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't have time at the mo for making any actual changes - maybe in a couple of weeks - so plenty of time for people to pick this up and/or respond here. |
|
|
|
|
|
] 12:19, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I've cleaned up the page a bit, but the central pro/anti structure remains to be tackled. It's not necessarily easy, but I think the page would be much better structured around the issues, such as incentives; competition/liberalization; externalities; and so on. ] 20:22, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Arguments against privatization == |
|
|
|
|
|
Removed: |
|
|
|
|
|
These bits still need to be reincorporated: |
|
|
|
|
|
--==-- |
|
|
|
|
|
Although this strategy allows often corrupt elements to capture control |
|
|
of state enterprises, this strategy would have fostered a viable capital |
|
|
market, which is the mechanism for bringing private savings into |
|
|
investment in enterprises. |
|
|
|
|
|
that few privatizations of the past few decades can be deemed unqualified successes. |
|
|
|
|
|
== Deutsche Post == |
|
|
|
|
|
"An example cited by proponents is Deutsche Post, once part of the German postal service, which began generating profits after it became a part of the international corporation TNT Worldwide Express." I can't find any deals between ] and ] () () . - ] 20:25, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
:I looked in Lexis-Nexis, and the example seems to be a mangling of several things. The privatised ''Dutch'' post office acquired TNT Express for several billion dollars in 1996 (later becoming TPG); Deutsche Post (not-yet privatised) bought some German operations of TNT in 1997. There are plenty of examples of privatised companies becoming profitable, but the above was inaccurate. ] 16:24, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Privatised versus public company== |
|
|
As a non-legal expert I'm not sure how to word this, but I am researching the history of the British railways, and the distinction between a private and a public railway is slightly different, which the term "privatisation" confuses, in that the reulting companies are 'public' ones, that is to say they are funded by public subscription in the form of shares. |
|
|
|
|
|
The early railways, or wagonways, were built by coalmasters etc. at their own, or the company's expense, hence were private. When larger schemes (also for turnpikes and canals) looked for outside finance, they became public railways subject to Act of Parliament to protect investors against ill-conceived or fraudulent schemes. As an example, the Duke of Norfok built a line to carry fare paying passengers and goods for profit, but he paid for it himself, therefore an Act of Parliament was not necessary. There were of course other Acts which laid down methods of operation, for safety or other reasons, but they are a separate issue. ] 10:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== public hands == |
|
|
|
|
|
"The above arguments have centered on whether or not it is practical to apply privatization in the real world, but some reject the profit incentive, the theoretical basis for privatization, itself. Some opponents of privatization argue that because the driving motive of a private company is profit, not public service, the public welfare may be sacrificed to the demands of profitability. ''There is no definitive answer, but it is very often argued that essential services, such as water, electricity, health, primary education, and so forth, should be left in public hands.'' This argument, of course, relies on the view on the obligations of the state, regarding what it should or should not be obliged to do. What is seen as desirable by a socialist may not be by a supporter of capitalism, and vice versa." |
|
|
|
|
|
I have a question regarding this sentence. Is it confusing. To say "public hands" means nothing, does it not? Did the writer not mean to say instead something to effect of those resources/services not being sanctioned for profitability etc.. Both nationalized and Privatized goods and services are essentially/ properly in public hands aren't they? |
|
|
|
|
|
] 18:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:it depends what's meant by "public". Those who use the phrase "public hands" are generally refering to a (democratically accountable) state. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Request for expansion== |
|
|
|
|
|
The section on ] is blank, save for a subhead titled "Coproratization." Needless to say, this does not look right. I'm not really sure what the expectations are for a section based on something for which there's already an article. --] 19:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Request for examples in Outcomes section== |
|
|
It's rather difficult to make claims regarding outcomes without any examples. I have a vague notion that this may be difficult to discuss without tripping over NPOV, so perhaps merely linking to specific instances of privatization without much commentary is the right thing to do. If there is to be a discussion of outcomes, it needs to be less abstract. |
|
|
] 23:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Untrue == |
|
|
|
|
|
I'd question the statement: |
|
|
|
|
|
"A good example of this is long-distance telecommunications in Europe, where the former state-owned enterprises lost their monopolies, competitors entered the market, and prices for international calls fell dramatically." |
|
|
|
|
|
This was happening anyway and surley was due to technological innovation? Im not questioning the point, I just think its a bad example. ] 15:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Please explain accusation== |
|
|
|
|
|
] reverted an addition I made to the article, calling it "Lyndon LaRouche propaganda." 172, please provide some evidence for this accusation, and explain further your rationale for deleting what I consider to be perfectly well documented and relevant material, added to an article labeled "Category: articles to be expanded." --<font color ="darkred"><font face ="georgia">]</font></font> 21:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:The agenda behind getting ] mentioned in this article is clear. LaRouche has a bizzare obsession with Rohatyn, whom he seems to think is central to the cabal of Jewish bankers he believes rules the world. A Google search of www.larouchepub.com turns for Felix Rohatyn turns up 108 search results. To LaRouche, Rohatyn's international conspiracy of Jewish bankers might be the driving force behind privatization. Nevertheless, per the Arbcom ruling, LaRouche's Jew-baiting has no place in this article. ] | ] 04:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Is that the best you can do? Your conspiracy theory is preposterous. A notable conference about a novel and controversial type of privatization was held at a prestigous location, Middlebury College. I have added a reference to it to an article about -- you guessed it -- privatization, and cited it to the official transcript of the conference. The last time you tried this sort of dishonest tactic (i.e., claiming that one of my edits had some oblique connection to LaRouche,) it failed. I suspect that it will fail this time as well. --<font color ="darkred"><font face ="georgia">]</font></font> 07:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The conference is not too relevant. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of academic conferences on privativation have been held over the years. You just think the one involving Rohatyn is important because Rohatyn is a key member of the "Synarchist International" like Alan Greenspan, Henry Kissinger, George Soros, and other Jewish LaRouche boggymen. ] | ] 15:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The issue of National Security Privatization is the biggest controversy of all those about privatization, particularly now that Negroponte and the Justice Department are looking into the Halliburton business. Your comments betray either an unfamiliarity with the subject matter, or just an impulse to be disruptive. I have filed a RfC. --<font color ="darkred"><font face ="georgia">]</font></font> 15:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::The idea of national security privatization has not been very well researched. The conference discussed an interesting but somewhat farfetched idea; national security, after all, is the most traditional of state domains. That particular conference was hardly important enough to warrant mentioning in this article; these kinds of conferences happen all the time. You quote a flippant comment by a skeptical academic at the conference. As someone who has been to conferences, I can tell you that flippant comments by academics being introduced to a new, controversial idea at a conference, are to be expected. (I've been to many similar conferences. I've made similarly flippant comments expressing my skepticism. Can by off-the-cuff remarks go in encyclopedia articles too?) Regardless of what LaRouche says, the conference was not evidence that Rohatyn and other "synarchists" are planning to privatizate national security in order to restore "feudalism." ] | ] 16:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I've come via the Rfc. As the section on national security mentions nothing regarding actual steps towards privatization of national security, it should be removed or rewritten as such. I see no reason to merely mention the fact that an academic conference took place where people discussed privatization of national security in the abstract. - <font color="#013220">]</font>·''<font color="#465945" size="1">]</font>'' 16:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I can't see why not to include it, from the sounds of it it is a conference of some signifigance in regards to privitization. Privitization of the military is a pretty unlikely possibility, in my estimation however. ] 17:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I've removed it, as in its present form it is definitely unencylopedic - it sounds like WikiNews. It's also speculative and US-centric. The topic may deserve its own article (]?) if someone wants to start it, but it is tangential to a good encyclopedia article on privatization in general. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:To avoid any misunderstanding, I totally accept that the article needs lots of work! It's just that this addition is not what it needs. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::In response to Sam Spade-- not really. Academic conferences are a dime a dozen, especially on privatization, which has been a hot topic among social scientists in a diverse array of fields for years. The rare conference has a big influence on public policy. Many conferences, however, are just attended by academics seeking to get published to fill up their CVs in order to get tenure. Herschelkrustofsky thinks the conference is important because LaRouche seems to think Rohatyn is a part of a global "synarchist" conspiracy to bring back feudalism. Still, for those of us who do not follow LaRouche, I don't see what's the big deal about one of countless academic conferneces that has taken place on the subject. ] | ] 20:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Regarding the comments of Sam and others that privatization of the military is an unlikely possibility (actually, we are discussing a category somewhat broader than just the military,) consider this quote from Felix Rohatyn's article in the ''Financial Times'', November 17, 2004: |
|
|
|
|
|
::"The past decade has witnessed a quiet revolution in the way the US projects its power abroad. In the first Gulf war, the ratio of American troops on the ground to private contractors was 50:1. In the 2003 Iraq war, that ratio was 10:1, as it was for the Clinton administration's interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo. As these figures reflect, key military functions have been outsourced to private companies; both Democratic and Republican presidents alike have steadily privatised crucial aspects of US national security. For a rough sense of the magnitude of this shift, Halliburton's total contracts in Iraq to date are estimated at $11bn-$13bn (£6bn-£7bn), more than twice what the first Gulf war cost the US." . |
|
|
|
|
|
:Furthermore, Peter Feaver is not just a "skeptical academic"; he is sufficiently noteworthy that he has his own Misplaced Pages article (]) and presently serves as an advisor to the NSC. And, although the tone of his quoted comment may seem flippant, I don't think that it actually is. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Finally, I find all of 172's speculation about my intentions to be offensive and a violation of ]. --<font color ="darkred"><font face ="georgia">]</font></font> 21:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting point! What do you say to starting a ] article (or something similar)? ] 21:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I would tend to oppose it, on the grounds that the issue of privatization of national security is sort of the final frontier for the whole debate on privatization. It is not a separate issue. You might say that privatization is a "slippery slope" that leads toward that consequence. --<font color ="darkred"><font face ="georgia">]</font></font> 21:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Herschel, my speculation about your intentions is not a violation of WP:CIVIL. Because of the Arbcom rulings, supporters of LaRouche are not afforded the same privileges as other editors. In fact, I'm giving you more of a benefit of the doubt than is really required. Dr. Adam Carr, for instance, declares on his user page that "Edits by members of the LaRouche cult" are "Things I delete on sight." The LaRouche Arbcom rulings have clearly shown that Dr. Carr's approach to dealing with LaRouche supporters has the support of Misplaced Pages's governing bodies and community. Still, I'll be somewhat more liberal in my approach, since I consider calling in the admins to back me up even more of a hassle. Now regarding the substance of your point, first the Rohatyn quotation is irrelevant. Rohatyn is talking about outsourcing, not privatization. That's a topic for a different article. Second, Feaver is indeed well respected in academic circles. Still, that's no criterion for including anything that he happens to say anywhere here. ] | ] 22:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Arbcom rulings may not be used against people as a lynching of their contributions. I've seen no material here that is linked to LaRouche publications, nor is this material promoting Lyndon Larouche. Mr. LaRouche supports a lot things that people in other areas of politics support. Does this mean that those ideas, such as being against Samuel Alito are not worthy of wikipedia because LaRouche was against him? The above statement is purely wrong per Jimbo Wales, as he states the Arbcom rulings are not to be used to single out any one group or editor; but to prevent propaganda from perpetrating as fact. From what I've read this is legitimate material and should be included as long as it is cited. I have seen no reasonable explanation for not including the material HK has. 172, you are not assuming good faith with this editor with your actions, and your name calling is a violation of NPA. If you continue to do this, you will be reported. Mellow out, and be pragmatic. Why the witch-hunt rhetoric above? --] 23:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::You do not appear familiar with the LaRouche rulings. Regarding the arbitration committee's rulings, the most important ruling states: ''Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche are instructed not to add references to Lyndon directly to articles except where they are highly relevant, and not to engage in activities that might be perceived as promotion of Lyndon LaRouche.'' (from ], September 2004) Note that LaRouche supporters are not to engage in activities that might be ''perceived'' as promotion of Lyndon LaRouche. So it does not matter that the material here happens not to be linked to LaRouche publications. If you don't like the Arbcom ruling, try to get it applied. Chiding me is simply blaming the messenger. ] | ] 00:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I fully understand them. It is you who do not understand. You cannot simply say that an edit is a LaRouche edit because LaRouche believes one thing or another. You must prove that this editor is directly promoting LaRouche. I see no evidence of this. Prove it. --] 00:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I did that by pointing to all the articles showing that Rohatyn is one of LaRouche's main bogeymen. Yet he is not as well known as LaRouche's rantings would suggest. BTW, this is a moot point by now. I have already explained why the material is irrelevant here, as did Rd232, for reasons that have nothing to do with LaRouche. ] | ] 00:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I don't accept those explanations. Privatizing social security is not a moot point. The meeting took place between several, not just Rohatyn. I could care less who he is, it is what took place that matters. Privatizing social security is major agenda issue of the present administration. It is important that the reader be informed and this informs the reader on one such case. It therefore is relevant and since it is factual and involves material important for the privatization issue, should be included. So what, so LaRouche hates the guy...so what. I could care less what LaRouche hates or not. What I care about is wikipedia. Is this addition of material relevant, Yes! Is it cited to outside sources? Yes? Ask youself, would you be challenging this if it was added by any other editor? Please assume good faith on HK's part and let well enough alone...it is a good addition to inform the reader some of the targets of privatization and is well cited. I see no legitimate reason to remove it. If you have a better wording for it - offer it below and together we will work on it. If it is the mention of Rohatyn you do not like, let us work on that. Assume good faith here. --] 00:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Uh, we're not talking about privatizing social security. Herschelkrustofsky's edit dealt with an academic conference that discussed privatizing national security functions. Rd232 and I then explained why info on that conference is not germane to this entry, noting that there have been no serious policy proposals to privatize national security functions. Herschel disagreed with us, pointing to a quotation by Rohatyn as evidence that the privatization of national security is already under way. However, the Rohatyn quotation dealt with ''outsourcing'', not privatization. Outsourcing and privatization are not the same thing. And since they are not the same thing, Herschel's information is not relevant here, as this is not the outsourcing article. ] | ] 00:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::My bad I meant to say Privatizing National Security...sorry about that. The present administration through the Dubai situation and Chinese situation at the Bahamas is what I meant...but I digress. Anyway, to your points. 'Outsourcing' NATIONAL SECURITY, is a major deal and very similar to privatization or corporatization. The actual title THEY USE, is Privatizing, not out-sourcing first. Let's review the edit: |
|
|
|
|
|
"In October of 2004, a conference was held at The Rohatyn Center for International Affairs of Middlebury College, entitled "The Privatization of National Security." Sponsored by the Rohatyn Center (see Felix Rohatyn) and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, the conference discussed privatization of functions which historically have been considered the sole province of the military and of official intelligence agencies. One participant, Peter D. Feaver, said that "In fact what we’re seeing is a return to neo-feudalism. If you think about how the East India Company played a role in the rise of the British Empire, there are similar parallels to the rise of the American quasi-empire." Feaver is presently an advisor to the National Security Council." |
|
|
|
|
|
Here we have paragraph one. What do you think doesn't concern privatization, which in America is when one contracts once governmental services to private firms? --] 00:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Northmeister, as others have explained (1) there's a difference between privatization and outsourcing; and (2) this academic conference was highlighted so that Herschelkrustofsky could slip in a Rohatyn mention, which gets cached by Google, and which in turn gets used as a source by other LaRouchies. The arbcom ruling strictly prohibits this behavior. ]. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 00:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Let's address my concerns above. If you are concerned about Rohatyn, then let's edit the name out and work with HK's material from that standpoint. The cites will remain and can be followed by interested party's and no googling will do as you indicate above. I would suggest just taking out the part "The Rohatyn Center....and picking up with Middlebury College, then with the sentence Sponsored, lets say "Sponsored in part by Woodrow Wilson..." skipping the Rohatyn reference all together, if that is bothering you. Even without those two parts I mentioned, the article is still readable and relevant for this. --] 00:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==My re-wording ...asking for all comments please== |
|
|
"Privatization of U.S. national security |
|
|
In October of 2004, a conference was held at Middlebury College, entitled "The Privatization of National Security." Sponsored in part by the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, the conference discussed privatization of functions which historically have been considered the sole province of the military and of official intelligence agencies of the United States government. One participant, Peter Feaver, said that "In fact what we’re seeing is a return to neo-feudalism. If you think about how the East India Company played a role in the rise of the British Empire, there are similar parallels to the rise of the American quasi-empire." |
|
|
|
|
|
The conference discuss what is called by some 'outsourcing' of key factors in the intelligence and military capabilities of the United States. Such 'outsourcing' is however different from private sector outsourcing, since it involves the transfer of once government related services to the private sector, which in the United States is simply called 'privatization'. " |
|
|
|
|
|
The above is my rewording of Hk's addition to the article. It removes the objections of Slimvirgin above, while addressing the concerns of those who feel the conference was about out-sourcing (I fully understand these terms by the way), and how out-sourcing governmental functions is a part of privatizing governmental service..perfectly legitimate for inclusion. I accept all comments. Do not revert without discussion. Let's work together on this. What do people think? HK? Slimvirgin? others above? --] 01:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The new wording's better for me, although Feaver does note in the article we link to that he's not an expert in this area, so I'm unsure about using that particular quote out of all the others we could use. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 01:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Your recent edits make the wording flow better and are acceptable to me. Your point about the quote has a point, but it does represent a strong sentiment (and growing) in the USA over privatization. HK, what do you think? --] 02:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I still see no reason behind including the section other than appeasing Herschel, which is not something we are bound to do, given the arbcom rulings. The transfer of once government related services to the private sector is often called "privatization," although the more correct term is outsourcing. While the distinction might not be too important in public discussions about policy, the subject of this article is a technical term in economics. The article needs a lot of work to tighten coverage and to establish more clear boundaries of the subject. Herschel's paragraph only weaken the focus needed to make this into a usable article someday. ] | ] 03:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:You are right, we as editor's are never bound to appease anyone. What we are bound to do is respect them however and consider their contributions in fair-light. If they are 'LaRouche' persons as HK has said he is, so be it. It is quite obvious the light of scrutiny burns brightly into that corner. HK, I am sure, is aware of this treatment. What is important, is whether his contributions were made in good faith and are not sourced to 'censored' material. Since Arbcom has 'censored' LaRouche websites; then it is fair game to revert edits where these websites are used except when directly related and 'highly relevant' reasons exist to use them. I disagree with this outright censorship because it violates the spirit of wikipedia, but I have no power over Arbcom or the decision itself and like yourself am bound to uphold it as a good wikipedian and will when the case arises to do so. THIS IS NOT ONE OF THOSE CASES, especially since the wording change. --- You keep stating that the technical term is 'out-sourcing', that simply is not right. When the government transfers services to the private sector it is engaged in privatization of services. You are simply mincing words here. Out-sourcing is primarily used in the common lexicon to describe the actions in the private sector of replacing domestic workers (American) with off-shore workers (foreigners). It may well be used to describe an activity associated with privatization overall however. Corporatization is also related and most often used in other countries to describe the process we in America call 'privatization'. I don't think HK's addition harms the article - in fact it helps it. It allows the reader to know of what privatization is, and what it affects overall. In fact, more cases like HK's should be presented, not less; to indicate privatizations effects. --] 04:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC) PS. Consider the opening paragraph which is accurate: "Privatization (sometimes privatisation, denationalization, or, especially in India, disinvestment) is the process of transferring property, from public ownership to private ownership and/or transferring the management of a service or activity from the government to the private sector. The reverse process is nationalization or municipalization." This is what that meeting described by HK in his edit was all about - privatization of governmental services etc. --] 04:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::To review, HK sought to back up his unsupported assertion that the privatization of national security functions is already a reality by quoting Rohatyn. However, the Rohatyn quotation is not about privatization (the transfer of public assets, institutions, or authority to the private sector); it's about outsourcing. The distinction is not a matter of "mincing words here." The contracting out of non-core operations from production within the firm itself-- private or public-- to a subcontractor that specializes in that operation is not unique to the public sector. In other words, defense outsourcing can be understood by the same logic that drives outsourcing in a large private corporation, rather than (say) the logic underpinning the classic case of privatization (the selling of electricity, gas, and telecommunication industries undertaken by the Thatcher government after 1979). If you want to make the case that the distinction does not matter in this case, that's original research on the part of you and HK, as you do not point to a soure backing up that assertion. ] | ] 05:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The quotation you speak of was taken out. The assertion you make of original research is foolish and illogical. Privatization involves transfering property and services once performed by government to the private sector, including 'privatizing' services through contract. What Thatcher did is also privatization or corporatization as it is called. I am making no case of distinction here; as it is not needed. When government transfers management of a particular service or activity to the private sector that is a form of privatization. This article is about privatization in all its facets, not just the narrow notion you speak of that would exclude almost all the activity traditionally accepted as privatizing in the United States. It seems original research is not my problem here. --] 06:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC) -I want to further add that much of this article is unsourced, especially the claims of academia section and the alternatives section which is confusing and needs cleaning up. --] 06:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Northmeister, I don't know enough about this to say whether Americans call outsourcing "privatization." Could you provide a source showing that the terms are used interchangeably? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 07:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Only those of us who lack a background in economics do. Outsourcing is contracting out for certain services formerly accomplished by internal production. Both public and private sector organizations outsource. Privatization goes further than outsourcing by implying transfer of ownership, assets, or authority into the private sector. The process by which the Pentagon buys services and goods from the private sector is understood as "outsourcing" in policy and academic circles here in the United States. Those describing the process of outsourcing followed by the Pentagon as "privatization" are usually political activists on the far-left (or, as we see here, LaRouchies) using the term in a polemical sense, or confused, thinking that the terms can be used interchangeably. ] | ] 07:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::The debate on this point is essentially a bogus one, because if 172 would take the trouble to review the quote from Rohatyn, he would find that Rohatyn uses both terms: "As these figures reflect, key military functions have been outsourced to private companies; both Democratic and Republican presidents alike have steadily privatised crucial aspects of US national security." |
|
|
|
|
|
:::The debate about "promotion of LaRouche" is also entirely bogus. Just as George Bush tries to argue every issue by bringing up September 11, the POV posse which includes 172 and SlimVirgin attempts to couch every debate in terms of the everpresent danger of creeping international LaRouchism. Northmeister's point is straightforward enough; the fact that Lyndon LaRouche strongly supports, for example, ], does not give you license to conduct a witch-hunt against every editor who appears to support a heliocentric view of the solar system. Since LaRouche did not originate the concept of heliocentrism, advocacy of heliocentrism does not represent promotion of LaRouche. I know exactly what the ArbCom decisions say, and I abide by them scrupulously. To quote Special Counsel for the Army ], "Have you no sense of decency?" --<font color ="darkred"><font face ="georgia">]</font></font> 08:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The only reason LaRouche gets mentioned around here is because you are constantly promoting him. Nw, we have already explained why your Rohatyn-baiting is irrevant. See the explantions directed to Northmeister. Your arguments for including the paragraph have been refuted. You are just being disruptive at this stage... And by the way, if you're interested in demonstrating that you have any sense of decency yourself, why not repudiate LaRouche's decades of anti-Semitic defamation against Rohatyn? LaRouche's anti-Semitic attacks against Rohatyn were documented in 1986 by Dennis King: ''On the first point, the LaRouchians have a long history of equating gays with Jews. In the late 1970s, they raved against the "faggot politics" of "Zionist-supporting" gay activists, but they also targeted Jews who were not part of the gay community: A LaRouchian cartoon strip depicted New York financier Felix Rohatyn (regarded by the LaRouchians as a central figure in the world Jewish conspiracy) as participating in a homosexual banquet with other prominent New York Jews, including Mayor Edward I. Koch, (labeled the "Emperor of Homohatten"), and union leader Albert Shanker (labeled "Albertius Judus").'' ] | ] 09:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
they lies if they sad. The boss is in the jsilhe can't be injail Because ittreind of then.boss and boy soliestheylessonthem instead oofme Because it my power 41.116.8.232 (talk) 11:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
There is a specific mechanism created by IMF, World Bank and USA to impose privatizations on the poorer countries, it even has an article here in wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/Washington_Consensus
