2 Comments

  1. Hardip Bakshi
    February 13, 2016 @ 2:16 am

    Any such measure should carry criminal liability of office bearers carrying appropriate jail time and monetary punitive sentences for the company. Such measures would knock the wind out of such attempts.

    Reply

  2. Paul Gregg
    February 14, 2016 @ 3:25 pm

    The proponents of “privatization” often claim that the motivation for this is a cost saving through “efficiency”, versus operation as a non-profit governmental agency responsible to the public.

    Of course, a privatized [profitized is a better descriptive] is responsible only to its shareholders, and to its top level managers who are often shareholders. They are not responsible to the public that they serve. The shareholders demand a maximum level of profit, obtained by any means, even if it allows reduction of the level of performance of their service to the public. Thus cutting staffing and labor costs is essential to allow a generous profit to be taken away from the expenses of services that had been performed previously. Thus “efficiency” simply means the efficiient transfer of funds to the shareholders as profits, with a lower level of performance given to the public. Profit does not come out of thin air, it must be taken from the operational funds that had previously been required to provide a higher level of service.

    Reply

Leave a Reply