Skip to main content

Is privatization better in the long run?

Image
By scooby
Anonymously contributed:

I thought I recognized the new business MO.


http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/bolivia/timeline.html

Yes, corporate efficiency is a strict taskmaster, and, yes, privatization is a difficult process, but it's better for everyone in the long run! It's change we can believe in, right?

Comments

Anonymous said…
Kind of looks like what's happening to LLNL. Monkey see, monkey do, but obviously never learned; until we're not a world power anymore. Mission accomplished.Privatization Is Wonderful
2/15/2010 8:22 PM
Anonymous said…
Privatization is better when you are developing something for a profit. Private companies that run government faculties are only interested in making a profit in managing these facilities. LLNS was awarded the operating contract for LLNL to shut down the weapons work, for the most part, and reduce the work force without incident. There are incentives that will provide additional profits to LLNS if they succeed in achieving these objectives within the required time period. To this end LLNS or any for profit corporations will probably perform this better than a government entity. However, when a for profit company operates a government facility, they are still under the direction and governing rule of a government agency, such as DOE or NNSA, which is not the same as a for profit company that sets its own agenda and, for the most part, its own direction. Simply, private companies that manage DOE facilities only profit by their management of these facilities not by their efficiencies in reducing operating cost of these facilities or the programs they support. They do, for the most part, exactly what DOE or NNSA want them to do; no more, no less.
United States government should be in the business of studying and developing things that are not necessarily profitable, but would be a benefit to mankind or the cause of freedom. Private or for profit companies are not a charity for the people; they are here to simply make money. This is not a bad thing, but it does not work in places where the end product is not a profit.
2/15/2010 9:46 PM
Anonymous said…
"Simply, private companies that manage DOE facilities only profit by their management of these facilities not by their efficiencies in reducing operating cost of these facilities or the programs they support"

Wrong! Congress's reason for moving ahead was to cut cost!
2/16/2010 6:40 AM
Anonymous said…
Congress knew going in that no private corporation would manage LLNL or LANL for the measly few million UC did it for. The initial congressional driver was frustration with UC over the continuing safety and security lapses at LANL. It simply strains credulity to think that anyone would believe that a for-profit manager would be cheaper than a not-for-profit one.
2/16/2010 11:36 AM
Anonymous said…
Ok, once more...

I know of one NWC site that in the mid 80’s accomplished the largest ever workload in their history with ~3000 employees. Today, they accomplish ~20% of that peak workload with ~4000 employees.

Can you dig it?
2/16/2010 2:09 PM
Anonymous said…
The basic mission is science. A metric that might give us a clue is Nobel Prize winners. How many came from a for profit company in the past?

All I see is employees are caused pain and it costs the Government more for getting less.
2/17/2010 7:23 AM
Anonymous said…
February 17, 2010 7:23 AM

7 at Bell Labs, while Ma Bell was still making a profit.
2/17/2010 9:51 PM
Anonymous said…
"All I see is employees are caused pain and it costs the Government more for getting less." - 7:23 AM


Yes, but at the same time, a very select group of people is using the for-profit contract status to get rich without putting any of their capital at risk.

What a sweet deal the lab LLCs are for the 1% at the top of the food chain!
2/17/2010 11:25 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

By scooby
Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...
155 comments
Read more

Trump is to gut the labs.

By scooby
The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.
124 comments
Read more

LLNL un-diversity

By scooby
Actual post from Dec. 15 from one of the streams. This is a real topic. As far as promoting women and minorities even if their qualifications are not as good as the white male scientists, I am all for it. We need diversity at the lab and if that is what it takes, so be it.  Quit your whining. Look around the lab, what do you see? White male geezers. How many African Americans do you see at the lab? Virtually none. LLNL is one of the MOST undiverse places you will see. Face it folks, LLNL is an institution of white male privilege and they don't want to give up their privileged positions. California, a state of majority Hispanics has the "crown jewel" LLNL nestled in the middle of it with very FEW Hispanics at all!
79 comments
Read more