Some parts should. Efficiency, getting value for money spent, reward high performing employees, investing in productivity improvements, listening to your stakeholders.
These are all qualities that high performing organizations share.
Yes, because the public sector doesn't strive for this at all
You don't need the treat of 'losing' to the competition to strive for those.
I will give you rewarding employees, the public sector doesn't do that. Largely because they don't want to be perceived as spending more money than necessary, freezing salaries etc to budget like a household, when Government isn't that.
The only ways in which the government and private business are similar is their dedication to the expansion and protection of Capital.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
Thats why Flames fans make ideal Star Trek fans. We've really been taught to embrace the self-loathing and extreme criticism.
The biggest reason businesses are perceived to have higher efficiency isn't because the private sector is magic. It's because the lowest efficiency operations in most sectors get competed into the ground and close, and their market share is taken by their more efficient competitors.
An inefficient government department is unlikely to lose its funding to a more efficient competitor.
Businesses also have the ability to choose the scope of their business. It's much easier to run efficiently with a narrow focus, compared to say healthcare, where you have to serve all 4 million citizens across dozens of specialized disciplines, and some services need to be 24/7. And of course healthcare is just one branch of many.
Furthermore, businesses can choose who they want to do business with - ie. they can fire customers who aren't worth dealing with. A lot of gov't services deal predominantly with the kinds of 'customers' that actual businesses would simply ignore.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to powderjunkie For This Useful Post:
Not sure if this fits 100%, but every time I see/hear a convo about the Government spending money, I remember this scene from my all-time favourite show...
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to FanIn80 For This Useful Post:
Not sure if this fits 100%, but every time I see/hear a convo about the Government spending money, I remember this scene from my all-time favourite show...
Wow...that goes back a while.....
__________________
Hey...where'd my avatar go?
The Following User Says Thank You to taxbuster For This Useful Post:
Businesses also have the ability to choose the scope of their business. It's much easier to run efficiently with a narrow focus, compared to say healthcare, where you have to serve all 4 million citizens across dozens of specialized disciplines, and some services need to be 24/7. And of course healthcare is just one branch of many.
Furthermore, businesses can choose who they want to do business with - ie. they can fire customers who aren't worth dealing with. A lot of gov't services deal predominantly with the kinds of 'customers' that actual businesses would simply ignore.
That's all true, and I'm definitely not the one saying government should be run like a business. But ultimately however you define a market there are varying levels of efficiency with which it could be served.
And the government defines its markets as well - there are plenty of things people would like the government to pay for that it doesn't. Even within it's domains like say healthcare, plenty of treatments aren't funded.
And efficiency != profit. Different systems can have differing efficiency serving the same goals as non-profits. As an example, I'm pretty grateful I don't get my healthcare from the VA in the US even though they spend plenty of money, but there are some foreign public health care systems that I'd probably prefer to what we have now.
But there is no mechanism for Singapore's health care system to replace the VA even though they have better outcomes and lower costs.
I guess other than elections, but that's a pretty blunt tool - the vast majority of issues will never rise to the level of affecting votes.
Not belittling teachers as teachers. As people who run a business they should have no say. I will trust people who have run a business for 20-30 years and understand the ins and outs of profit/loss and government regulations. Also from seeing where Canada's rankings are going in regards to STEM maybe we need to refocus the curriculum.
####ing idiotic!!!!
So it's useful just to think though your point logically before getting so angry.
Education isn't a business, at least not K-12. It's a service that is designed to produce an educated workforce which can grow an economy.
You wouldn't believe it, but there are very few skills you would get from running a car dealership, a Wendy's, or being a radio host that apply to leading education.
Now you could argue that higher education is a business, and in many places it is, especially the US.
What will blow your mind is that those higher education institutions are largely run by education professionals. And at prestigious, private institutions it is often run by tenured professors, often ones with no experience running a small business. And they end up being the best in the world! Is it a surprise that where teachers have more input into education they have better outcomes (Scandinavia for one).
You don't want either to act like the other one. Did you people fail second grade?
Did you?
Governments exist to regulate power, thus setting a stable viable economic environment (laws, transportation systems, currency etc.) for private businesses to safely and effectively operate AND not cannibalize each other.
Services are merely a cog in this wheel to a greater or lesser extent. These are the things taken for grated while taxation is demonized.
You want, or actually need governments to fulfill the role of the private sector when the private sector can not fulfill the requirements of a stable viable economic environment.
This is also a gross oversimplification as a response to an even larger oversimplification.
The Following User Says Thank You to Boreal For This Useful Post:
You don't want either to act like the other one. Did you people fail second grade?
While I completely agree with you, a more efficient private sector can deliver higher profits and a more efficient government can provide better services. We should try to pursue both.
So does it look like the flames are getting a new arena or not?
What do you mean? There hasn't been a tangible update that suggests things are close since the Flames backed out of the last deal. They're starting to meet again, and I'd imagine if/when material prices are at a desirable level for the Flames they'll agree to basically the same deal they backed out of and we'll have a new arena on the way.
The Following User Says Thank You to jayswin For This Useful Post:
What do you mean? There hasn't been a tangible update that suggests things are close since the Flames backed out of the last deal. They're starting to meet again, and I'd imagine if/when material prices are at a desirable level for the Flames they'll agree to basically the same deal they backed out of and we'll have a new arena on the way.
With the amount of debt being racked up in North America I’d say that might happen never.
