Tuesday, August 16, 2005

To the Privatization Elite: Prove It Works, or Get Out of Town!

They’ve gotten away with this for far too long, living off the fantasies of their snake oil slogans, as well as their lies. Now is the time to call them on it all. If privatization of everything—-from prisons and schools to energy and water, and from health care to Social Security---is so great, let’s see you prove it.

There are enough examples out there now, some running for decades. Show us the money you saved. Show us the efficiency of the private sector, the magic of the marketplace in providing better and more affordable health care, cheaper energy, better schools at lower costs. Spare us the platitudes. Prove it. Prove that privatization works.

The time is right to make this demand because privatization has suffered what looks so far like it’s first major defeat. As Paul Krugman says in his column, Bush’ plan to “reform” Social Security was seen for what it was, as privatization of public insurance, turning it into a risky investment benefiting bankers rather than a guaranteed social safety net earned by every American worker for their old age.

Krugman draws some general lessons. For example: “But the campaign for privatization provided an object lesson in how the administration sells its policies: by misrepresenting its goals, lying about the facts and abusing its control of government agencies. These were the same tactics used to sell both tax cuts and the Iraq war. “

The lies continue, he warns, as Bush officials lie shamelessly about the vulnerabilities and design of Social Security. But the “public's visceral rejection of privatization” should embolden Democrats to go after the Bushers for their “pattern of deception” on this and other major matters, Krugman says.

But there’s another opportunity here, which is to bring the debate on the whole mythology of privatization into a sharp focus, and finally demand that if proponents believe that privatization works so well, it’s time to prove it.


The policy of privatization emerged as one of the major mantras and most destructive changes that began in the 1980s and still threatens America’s future today. Privatization is another way that America turned itself inside-out, reversing what had been public with what had been private.

Privatization became policy in the Reagan years, when the relationship between big money (individuals and corporations) and politicians (mostly Repub and ultra-conservative, but not exclusively) stopped being kissing cousins and started on the road to blatant incest.

While big money worked its wonders behind the scenes, buying politicians, media outlets and making media stars (either merely subservient or wholly owned), the campaign succeeded politically through a new rhetoric: disguised as good old boy common sense, it was insidiously effective advertising sloganeering, so slippery and yet so outrageous that it left opponents speechless.

Privatization followed the so-called taxpayer revolt of the 1970s, which cut municipal and state taxes so severely that public schools, public health and public infrastructure gradually but decisively deteriorated. It also followed Reagan’s federal tax cuts and budget cuts, which further reduced public funding to these state and local programs.

Then came the heavy guns of rhetoric. How were all these public services going to be financed with less tax money, opponents wanted to know. Easy—privatize them! They were just wasting the taxpayer’s hard earned money anyway, full of fraud and abuse. That kind of thing would never go on in a private company! Private companies have to be efficient, they have to deliver. Let them compete and free the magic of the marketplace. Replace the pencil-pushers with hard-nosed can-do entrepreneurs, the kind that made America great.

After the junk bond scandals of the 80s, and certainly after Enron, which privatized energy and rippedoff California’s taxpayers for billions to pay for electricity at prices that had no basis in any reality except the deception and greed of corporate criminals and their political supporters, that such arguments would be laughed off the stage. But they are still being made, every day.

The latest arena is water. Municipalities all over North America (as well as in the UK and virtually everywhere globalization reaches) are under pressure to sell their water systems to corporations. Who, they claim, can deliver water more efficiently at a better price to consumers, while relieving taxpayers of the burden.

Water is just about the last major public utility to survive in America. Despite all the bottles of water everyone carries, and all the pollution and chemical poisons that efficient private industries have poured into the rivers and lakes, and leached into the water table (for getting others to pay for your waste is part of being efficient), America’s municipal water systems are still quite good. They deliver reasonably high quality and healthy water to every home reliably and at low cost.

Not in Atlanta, however, when it turned to a private company to supply its water. The company withdrew from the market after several years of disaster, including violation of federal drinking water health standards. Ten regional water systems in the UK were privatized, resulting in 50% price hikes, and soaring disconnection rates, thanks to efficient meters that automatically shut off the water when a customer failed to “pre-pay.”

Most other privatizations have been equally disastrous or worse. Even the war in Iraq has been privatized, with privately contracted torture management and Halliburton’s efficient use of food service funds to provide soldiers with spoiled food while creating sumptuous feasts for company executives and their cronies.

The time is also ripe to use the “prove it” demand to change the health care debate. The US privatized health care system is in effect nothing less than barbarous. The burden of proof should not be for proponents of public funding for universal health care, but for the supporters of the current system to prove that it shouldn’t be dismantled immediately, and the officers of HMOs forced to get all their medical care in emergency rooms.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Opponents of returning resources to the people -- whence government took them in the first place -- often set up straw men to attack privatization. For example, they will point to government putting water, energy, etc., in the hands of corporations, as Dash does in his article here.

But if government is still granting a regional monopoly to one company, as is usually the case with so-called "private" energy and water providers, that's not real privatization! Champions of privatization have always advocated doing everything possible to create the conditions for healthy competition between various players in the free market, not simply transferring non-competitive government monopolies fully intact.

Someone of a cynical bent might suspect that politicians are trying to inocculate themselves against real free market reform by selectively turning certain assets over to private monopoly control. Think about it: Not only do they get an immediate shot of extra money in their budgets from the sale, but they ingratiate themselves with the corporate interests now in control who are are able to jack up the cost of the newly "privatized" services and kick back some of their profits in campaign contributions.

By the time the public realizes what has happened, the politicians responsible for the phony privatization will have moved on, and their successors will take the blame for the fleecing of the public.

Meanwhile, the concept of privatization gets a bad name, so that people in the future are less willing to trust free market solutions and politicians are able to keep more power for themselves.

Anonymous said...

Same thing happened with California's so-called energy deregulation, designed by liberal, Democrat Steve Peace of San Diego.

What it did was require that all brokerage for energy contracts go thruogh a single exchange. It outlawed contracts outside of the exchange.

Further, it really wasn't privatization in that the consumer still had no choice of supplier. There was still a monopoly provider at the local level, enforced by law. A true privatization scheme would allow competing companies to lay their line next to each other. Or require that as a condition of using the public right of way, that competing companies be allowed to operate on the same lines.

Moreover, there have been no new power plants built in California for years. The regulatory and bureaucratic hurdles are overwhelming.

Of course, the system was set up to fail. The end result was that energy "privatization" was discredited. If one wanted to discredit the notion, no better way could be devised. Sometime, I think that was Steve Peace's intention, being a liberal Democrat -- to discredit privatization.

Anonymous said...

The proponents of the current U.S. health care system don't have to prove that it is better than an unproven radical alternative, though they can. The burden of proof is always upon the affirmative. (Prove their ISN'T a god.) The proponents of nationalized health care have the burden of proving that it is better.

If it was better, then there is more than adequate experience with it around the world. Yet wherever it is tried, it results in shortages and lowered quality.

Plus it destroys innovation so that the rest of the world is dependent upon American medical advances for medical progress.

It also drives doctors to immigrate to the U.S. because it is a bad deal for doctors. (Rule 1: Never piss off your doctor.)

When Canadians stop going to U.S. doctors and hospitals and Americans start going to Canadian doctors and hospitals, then nationalized health care will have proven itself.

The problem with nationalized health care proponents is that they want utopia and immortality guaranteed, regardless of people's lack of responsibility. Sure there are problems with the U.S. health care system. But any attempt to guarantee something and not require personal responsibility will result in shortages and lower quality so that the situation is worse than before. Health care is more universal and accessible in the U.S. than in Canada, even for the poor, except that a person has to eventually pay for it, which is as it should be. Nothing in life is free.

Anonymous said...

When it comes to true privatization, the outcome will always be similar. Open-ended, flexible systems without politicalization will always beat deterministic systems. It is a no brainier. Just take a look at Chaology – the theories of chaos and complexity. You will immediately see that self-organizing systems (SOS) are extremely superior to centralized systems for a host of reasons. But there is more to celebrate. With non-government systems, citizens get the additional benefit of more free choice and personal consent.

It is an illusion to think that a bloated, non-feedback system, built on top-down edicts could ever complete with a flexible one. See my brief article on Chaology under writings at www.freedom1776.com

--L.K. Samuels

Captain Future said...

Interesting comments but none answer the fundamental question: in practice, not in theory, has privatization worked?

Most of what privatization was supposed to fix wasn't all that broke in the first place, and has only gotten worse: more expensive, worse quality, fewer people reliably provided services, more arbitrary and bureaucratic, less accountable to the public.

Not only does it not work but I disagree that it is appropriate or workable when fundamental services to the whole public are given to a corporation or a group of corporations whose first priority is profit, not the public good. Further, it is fundamentally undemocratic, in that there is no public accountability.

I grant you the ways some government "monopolies" have functioned have been deeply flawed, overly bureaucratic and disconnected from functional day to day accountability. But to change that requires better laws and better training in public service, and honor to public servants.

But the idea that competing water systems or competing health care systems will work better is pure theory, and invites chaos and even less accountability. There is no magic of the marketplace where people don't really have choices, or the choices aren't meaningful. Marketplace theory is comfortably abstract, but in the real world the logic of business is towards monopoly and destroying competition. All small businesses have to become bigger or die. I've seen it happen. If companies can't eliminate competition, they engage in formal or informal price fixing. The consumer ends up with no meaningful choices.

As for regulations, de-regulation is also a part of privatization, and again it sounds great (and there are enough cases of bad regulations badly executed to tar them all) but its function is to create such chaos that throwing the problem at corporations seems attractive. The truth is that Americans are left unprotected from private companies that cut their costs at the expense of health, safety, environmental protection and honesty in reporting to the public.

So instead of a rationally financed public health care system with universal coverage so that everyone gets medical care, we have a series of HMO monopolies, inflating costs so they can buy other companies and get bigger, wine and dine politicians and pay for fleets of lobbyists to get laws to give them advantages over competitors. Meanwhile they fail to provide care to people who need it and drop entire counties and regions if they are insufficiently profitable.

There aren't too many things I'd go to the barricades for anymore, but fighting the corporate takeover of municipal water is surely one of them.

These theories lack real world relevance.