Subject:
|
Re: Art? or Theft? or just signs that NPR is damaged.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 13 Oct 2003 01:46:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
452 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim David wrote:
>
> Just a bit p****d off with the government privatising and contracting out stuff.
In general, or at specific naff implementations?
> I can't see how it can cost less or be better as at the end of the day some of
> the money has to go to shareholders.
I'm not sure quite how far back to go to answer this. Do you deny that it's even
possible for a private firm to do something more efficiently than a government?
If you do, we have no basis for going further, but if you don't, why then, all
you have to do is be more efficient by at least the profit margin you want to
get. I don't know about you, but I've seen government services that are woefully
inefficent.
> In the case of the railways they sold off
> something that everyone was a shareholder in
?? really ?? Could you sell your shares in the open market? If not, then
shareholder isn't quite the right term.
> and then pay the people that bought
> it for a very reduced price out of the money fromthe previous owners taxes.
Were these railways let for bid? If they were and they were sold in an open,
fair and free auction, then the correct price was paid for them. Don't confuse
what was spent on a thing by the previous owners with what it's actually worth.
> Any
> (real) cost savings then got line the shareholders pockets while the taxpayers
> subsidise them.
If the taxpayers are still subsidising the operation after it's been
"privatised" I would submit that it really hasn't been. And that's something
worth getting annoyed about.
> I know I've gone off topic sorry
>
> Re: the original message
> As long as she doesn't damage I can't really see the problem,
Well I guess given the above, which suggests that your concept of what private
property is might be rather weaker than some, I shouldn't have expected a
different answer.
Whose property is it??? Ask yourself that.
Do you mind if I come by your flat and play with all your LEGO, do it in a way
that it gets in your way of doing the things you want to do, and take pictures
(to sell at a profit to me which you get none of) of the mess I make and leave
you to clean it all up after I'm through?
If you're Ok with that, then fine. Else you need to look a little harder to "see
the problem".
> who knows, someone
> in a store might be inspired by seeing her work and buy a load of paving slabs
> or whatever to make their own, plus if not then just sell them from her
> sculpture instead of the pallet!
Just don't get too close in case it falls over and falls on your toe, hmm?
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
26 Messages in This Thread:
  
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
