Talk:Privatization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Privatization article.


Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion.

Contents

[edit] Who coined the term?

The term privatiation was in fact coined by the nazis, and not the economist, this should be changed. (well to be fair there is a considerable amount of controversy about htis, but it is simply biased to only state one viewpoint) werelight 16:45, 6 november 2006 (UTC)


[edit] restoration of outcomes section

I believe the outcomes section, which includes academic studies, tends to lend weight to the entire article. It does not lack objectivity in that it is clearly set out, and properly supported by citations. It does not fail to mention that there are often social costs to the efficiency gains. It also indicates that most of the gains arose prior to privatisation.

Those objecting to the contents of this section would be better advised to perhaps expand on the nature and amount of these social costs. They should refer to the same study if they feel the writer has misinterpreted or misrepresented the authors of the study by being economical with the facts. An alternative would be to cite other academic studies which perhaps could disprove any of the contentious points. Ohconfucius 06:02, 6 July 2006

[edit] Rewrites of 28 & 29 June, 2006

The article has been restructured to present clearly the arguments for and against, case histories, obstacles and difficulties of nationalisation and privatisation. The arguments for and against have been strengthened and made more clear, classified and objective - for example, most of the points listed as "for" have counter-arguments in the "against" part. I thought it important to introduce the privacy/civil liberties argument often cited by liberals against nationalised industries.

There are a number of places where I believe citations are essential to lend greater weight and objectivity. At present, the claims so described are not justified by references.

I have also rearranged some of the references as footnotes so that they are easier to follow. Ohconfucius 10:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archives

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:


[edit] Some distinctions to be worked towards

Obviously this will be a controversial page, as the Talk history shows. I think it would help to structure the page more around the principle that the basic pro-privatization argument is that any social costs are outweighed by increased efficiency, and the basic anti argument that often any increase in efficiency is either outweighed by social costs, or an illusion (costs are externalised not reduced, and/or services reduced).

Also there are some distinctions or categorisations that might be worked towards, and if done properly it would make the pro/anti arguments clearer. We might try to avoid an overly-technical language ('merit goods' etc) as the basis for classification, though maybe the terms should be used/explained somewhere on the page. First, post-communist privatization is clearly a category of its own - that's why we have the term 'transition economies' (a term not currently in Wikipedia AFAIK). Second, privatization of companies operating in (more or less) standard competitive markets. Third, natural monopolies. Fourth, public services. Each of these categories raises different aspects of the basic issues, and explaining the pro/anti arguments specifically in each will be much more helpful. The general pro/anti argument sections could then hopefully be reduced to summaries, and mention some of the broader issues (eg cultural impact such as concerns about the marketization of society).

There might also be a specific section on economic/social/regulatory context - in particular the effects of privatizing where there are weak institutions, and what kind of institutions can be considered 'strong'. There could be some mention of links with liberalisation/deregulation here, especially in terms of how the order of economic reforms can affect their success. Finally, I think the list of privatizations should have its own page - here it's mostly a distraction from the arguments, and is very partial anyway. A summary would suffice and be less misleading by omission.

I don't have time at the mo for making any actual changes - maybe in a couple of weeks - so plenty of time for people to pick this up and/or respond here.

Rd232 12:19, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the page a bit, but the central pro/anti structure remains to be tackled. It's not necessarily easy, but I think the page would be much better structured around the issues, such as incentives; competition/liberalization; externalities; and so on. Rd232 20:22, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Arguments against privatization

Removed:

These bits still need to be reincorporated:

--==--

Although this strategy allows often corrupt elements to capture control of state enterprises, this strategy would have fostered a viable capital market, which is the mechanism for bringing private savings into investment in enterprises.

that few privatizations of the past few decades can be deemed unqualified successes.

[edit] Deutsche Post

"An example cited by proponents is Deutsche Post, once part of the German postal service, which began generating profits after it became a part of the international corporation TNT Worldwide Express." I can't find any deals between Deutsche Post and TPG ([1]) ([2]) . - Jerryseinfeld 20:25, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I looked in Lexis-Nexis, and the example seems to be a mangling of several things. The privatised Dutch post office acquired TNT Express for several billion dollars in 1996 (later becoming TPG); Deutsche Post (not-yet privatised) bought some German operations of TNT in 1997. There are plenty of examples of privatised companies becoming profitable, but the above was inaccurate. Rd232 16:24, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Privatised versus public company

As a non-legal expert I'm not sure how to word this, but I am researching the history of the British railways, and the distinction between a private and a public railway is slightly different, which the term "privatisation" confuses, in that the reulting companies are 'public' ones, that is to say they are funded by public subscription in the form of shares.

The early railways, or wagonways, were built by coalmasters etc. at their own, or the company's expense, hence were private. When larger schemes (also for turnpikes and canals) looked for outside finance, they became public railways subject to Act of Parliament to protect investors against ill-conceived or fraudulent schemes. As an example, the Duke of Norfok built a line to carry fare paying passengers and goods for profit, but he paid for it himself, therefore an Act of Parliament was not necessary. There were of course other Acts which laid down methods of operation, for safety or other reasons, but they are a separate issue. Chevin 10:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] public hands

"The above arguments have centered on whether or not it is practical to apply privatization in the real world, but some reject the profit incentive, the theoretical basis for privatization, itself. Some opponents of privatization argue that because the driving motive of a private company is profit, not public service, the public welfare may be sacrificed to the demands of profitability. There is no definitive answer, but it is very often argued that essential services, such as water, electricity, health, primary education, and so forth, should be left in public hands. This argument, of course, relies on the view on the obligations of the state, regarding what it should or should not be obliged to do. What is seen as desirable by a socialist may not be by a supporter of capitalism, and vice versa."

I have a question regarding this sentence. Is it confusing. To say "public hands" means nothing, does it not? Did the writer not mean to say instead something to effect of those resources/services not being sanctioned for profitability etc.. Both nationalized and Privatized goods and services are essentially/ properly in public hands aren't they?

Inko 18:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

it depends what's meant by "public". Those who use the phrase "public hands" are generally refering to a (democratically accountable) state. Rd232 talk 20:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for expansion

The section on Alternatives to privatization is blank, save for a subhead titled "Coproratization." Needless to say, this does not look right. I'm not really sure what the expectations are for a section based on something for which there's already an article. --zenohockey 19:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Request for examples in Outcomes section

It's rather difficult to make claims regarding outcomes without any examples. I have a vague notion that this may be difficult to discuss without tripping over NPOV, so perhaps merely linking to specific instances of privatization without much commentary is the right thing to do. If there is to be a discussion of outcomes, it needs to be less abstract. Wli 23:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Untrue

I'd question the statement:

"A good example of this is long-distance telecommunications in Europe, where the former state-owned enterprises lost their monopolies, competitors entered the market, and prices for international calls fell dramatically."

This was happening anyway and surley was due to technological innovation? Im not questioning the point, I just think its a bad example. 137.222.10.57 15:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please explain accusation

User:172 reverted an addition I made to the article[3], calling it "Lyndon LaRouche propaganda." 172, please provide some evidence for this accusation, and explain further your rationale for deleting what I consider to be perfectly well documented and relevant material, added to an article labeled "Category: articles to be expanded." --HK 21:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The agenda behind getting Felix Rohatyn mentioned in this article is clear. LaRouche has a bizzare obsession with Rohatyn, whom he seems to think is central to the cabal of Jewish bankers he believes rules the world. A Google search of www.larouchepub.com turns for Felix Rohatyn turns up 108 search results. [4] To LaRouche, Rohatyn's international conspiracy of Jewish bankers might be the driving force behind privatization. Nevertheless, per the Arbcom ruling, LaRouche's Jew-baiting has no place in this article. 172 | Talk 04:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Is that the best you can do? Your conspiracy theory is preposterous. A notable conference about a novel and controversial type of privatization was held at a prestigous location, Middlebury College. I have added a reference to it to an article about -- you guessed it -- privatization, and cited it to the official transcript of the conference. The last time you tried this sort of dishonest tactic (i.e., claiming that one of my edits had some oblique connection to LaRouche,) it failed. I suspect that it will fail this time as well. --HK 07:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
The conference is not too relevant. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of academic conferences on privativation have been held over the years. You just think the one involving Rohatyn is important because Rohatyn is a key member of the "Synarchist International" like Alan Greenspan, Henry Kissinger, George Soros, and other Jewish LaRouche boggymen. 172 | Talk 15:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
The issue of National Security Privatization is the biggest controversy of all those about privatization, particularly now that Negroponte and the Justice Department are looking into the Halliburton business. Your comments betray either an unfamiliarity with the subject matter, or just an impulse to be disruptive. I have filed a RfC. --HK 15:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
The idea of national security privatization has not been very well researched. The conference discussed an interesting but somewhat farfetched idea; national security, after all, is the most traditional of state domains. That particular conference was hardly important enough to warrant mentioning in this article; these kinds of conferences happen all the time. You quote a flippant comment by a skeptical academic at the conference. As someone who has been to conferences, I can tell you that flippant comments by academics being introduced to a new, controversial idea at a conference, are to be expected. (I've been to many similar conferences. I've made similarly flippant comments expressing my skepticism. Can by off-the-cuff remarks go in encyclopedia articles too?) Regardless of what LaRouche says, the conference was not evidence that Rohatyn and other "synarchists" are planning to privatizate national security in order to restore "feudalism." 172 | Talk 16:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I've come via the Rfc. As the section on national security mentions nothing regarding actual steps towards privatization of national security, it should be removed or rewritten as such. I see no reason to merely mention the fact that an academic conference took place where people discussed privatization of national security in the abstract. - Jersyko·talk 16:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't see why not to include it, from the sounds of it it is a conference of some signifigance in regards to privitization. Privitization of the military is a pretty unlikely possibility, in my estimation however. Sam Spade 17:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it, as in its present form it is definitely unencylopedic - it sounds like WikiNews. It's also speculative and US-centric. The topic may deserve its own article (national security privatization?) if someone wants to start it, but it is tangential to a good encyclopedia article on privatization in general. Rd232 talk 20:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

To avoid any misunderstanding, I totally accept that the article needs lots of work! It's just that this addition is not what it needs. Rd232 talk 20:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
In response to Sam Spade-- not really. Academic conferences are a dime a dozen, especially on privatization, which has been a hot topic among social scientists in a diverse array of fields for years. The rare conference has a big influence on public policy. Many conferences, however, are just attended by academics seeking to get published to fill up their CVs in order to get tenure. Herschelkrustofsky thinks the conference is important because LaRouche seems to think Rohatyn is a part of a global "synarchist" conspiracy to bring back feudalism. [5] Still, for those of us who do not follow LaRouche, I don't see what's the big deal about one of countless academic conferneces that has taken place on the subject. 172 | Talk 20:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the comments of Sam and others that privatization of the military is an unlikely possibility (actually, we are discussing a category somewhat broader than just the military,) consider this quote from Felix Rohatyn's article in the Financial Times, November 17, 2004:
"The past decade has witnessed a quiet revolution in the way the US projects its power abroad. In the first Gulf war, the ratio of American troops on the ground to private contractors was 50:1. In the 2003 Iraq war, that ratio was 10:1, as it was for the Clinton administration's interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo. As these figures reflect, key military functions have been outsourced to private companies; both Democratic and Republican presidents alike have steadily privatised crucial aspects of US national security. For a rough sense of the magnitude of this shift, Halliburton's total contracts in Iraq to date are estimated at $11bn-$13bn (£6bn-£7bn), more than twice what the first Gulf war cost the US." [6].
Furthermore, Peter Feaver is not just a "skeptical academic"; he is sufficiently noteworthy that he has his own Wikipedia article (Peter D. Feaver) and presently serves as an advisor to the NSC. And, although the tone of his quoted comment may seem flippant, I don't think that it actually is.
Finally, I find all of 172's speculation about my intentions to be offensive and a violation of WP:CIVIL. --HK 21:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting point! What do you say to starting a national security privatization article (or something similar)? Sam Spade 21:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to oppose it, on the grounds that the issue of privatization of national security is sort of the final frontier for the whole debate on privatization. It is not a separate issue. You might say that privatization is a "slippery slope" that leads toward that consequence. --HK 21:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Herschel, my speculation about your intentions is not a violation of WP:CIVIL. Because of the Arbcom rulings, supporters of LaRouche are not afforded the same privileges as other editors. In fact, I'm giving you more of a benefit of the doubt than is really required. Dr. Adam Carr, for instance, declares on his user page that "Edits by members of the LaRouche cult" are "Things I delete on sight." [7] The LaRouche Arbcom rulings have clearly shown that Dr. Carr's approach to dealing with LaRouche supporters has the support of Wikipedia's governing bodies and community. Still, I'll be somewhat more liberal in my approach, since I consider calling in the admins to back me up even more of a hassle. Now regarding the substance of your point, first the Rohatyn quotation is irrelevant. Rohatyn is talking about outsourcing, not privatization. That's a topic for a different article. Second, Feaver is indeed well respected in academic circles. Still, that's no criterion for including anything that he happens to say anywhere here. 172 | Talk 22:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Arbcom rulings may not be used against people as a lynching of their contributions. I've seen no material here that is linked to LaRouche publications, nor is this material promoting Lyndon Larouche. Mr. LaRouche supports a lot things that people in other areas of politics support. Does this mean that those ideas, such as being against Samuel Alito are not worthy of wikipedia because LaRouche was against him? The above statement is purely wrong per Jimbo Wales, as he states the Arbcom rulings are not to be used to single out any one group or editor; but to prevent propaganda from perpetrating as fact. From what I've read this is legitimate material and should be included as long as it is cited. I have seen no reasonable explanation for not including the material HK has. 172, you are not assuming good faith with this editor with your actions, and your name calling is a violation of NPA. If you continue to do this, you will be reported. Mellow out, and be pragmatic. Why the witch-hunt rhetoric above? --Northmeister 23:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
You do not appear familiar with the LaRouche rulings. Regarding the arbitration committee's rulings, the most important ruling states: Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche are instructed not to add references to Lyndon directly to articles except where they are highly relevant, and not to engage in activities that might be perceived as promotion of Lyndon LaRouche. (from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision, September 2004) Note that LaRouche supporters are not to engage in activities that might be perceived as promotion of Lyndon LaRouche. So it does not matter that the material here happens not to be linked to LaRouche publications. If you don't like the Arbcom ruling, try to get it applied. Chiding me is simply blaming the messenger. 172 | Talk 00:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I fully understand them. It is you who do not understand. You cannot simply say that an edit is a LaRouche edit because LaRouche believes one thing or another. You must prove that this editor is directly promoting LaRouche. I see no evidence of this. Prove it. --Northmeister 00:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I did that by pointing to all the articles showing that Rohatyn is one of LaRouche's main bogeymen. Yet he is not as well known as LaRouche's rantings would suggest. BTW, this is a moot point by now. I have already explained why the material is irrelevant here, as did Rd232, for reasons that have nothing to do with LaRouche. 172 | Talk 00:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't accept those explanations. Privatizing social security is not a moot point. The meeting took place between several, not just Rohatyn. I could care less who he is, it is what took place that matters. Privatizing social security is major agenda issue of the present administration. It is important that the reader be informed and this informs the reader on one such case. It therefore is relevant and since it is factual and involves material important for the privatization issue, should be included. So what, so LaRouche hates the guy...so what. I could care less what LaRouche hates or not. What I care about is wikipedia. Is this addition of material relevant, Yes! Is it cited to outside sources? Yes? Ask youself, would you be challenging this if it was added by any other editor? Please assume good faith on HK's part and let well enough alone...it is a good addition to inform the reader some of the targets of privatization and is well cited. I see no legitimate reason to remove it. If you have a better wording for it - offer it below and together we will work on it. If it is the mention of Rohatyn you do not like, let us work on that. Assume good faith here. --Northmeister 00:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Uh, we're not talking about privatizing social security. Herschelkrustofsky's edit dealt with an academic conference that discussed privatizing national security functions. Rd232 and I then explained why info on that conference is not germane to this entry, noting that there have been no serious policy proposals to privatize national security functions. Herschel disagreed with us, pointing to a quotation by Rohatyn as evidence that the privatization of national security is already under way. However, the Rohatyn quotation dealt with outsourcing, not privatization. Outsourcing and privatization are not the same thing. And since they are not the same thing, Herschel's information is not relevant here, as this is not the outsourcing article. 172 | Talk 00:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
My bad I meant to say Privatizing National Security...sorry about that. The present administration through the Dubai situation and Chinese situation at the Bahamas is what I meant...but I digress. Anyway, to your points. 'Outsourcing' NATIONAL SECURITY, is a major deal and very similar to privatization or corporatization. The actual title THEY USE, is Privatizing, not out-sourcing first. Let's review the edit:

"In October of 2004, a conference was held at The Rohatyn Center for International Affairs of Middlebury College, entitled "The Privatization of National Security." Sponsored by the Rohatyn Center (see Felix Rohatyn) and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, the conference discussed privatization of functions which historically have been considered the sole province of the military and of official intelligence agencies.[1] One participant, Peter D. Feaver, said that "In fact what we’re seeing is a return to neo-feudalism. If you think about how the East India Company played a role in the rise of the British Empire, there are similar parallels to the rise of the American quasi-empire." Feaver is presently an advisor to the National Security Council."

Here we have paragraph one. What do you think doesn't concern privatization, which in America is when one contracts once governmental services to private firms? --Northmeister 00:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Northmeister, as others have explained (1) there's a difference between privatization and outsourcing; and (2) this academic conference was highlighted so that Herschelkrustofsky could slip in a Rohatyn mention, which gets cached by Google, and which in turn gets used as a source by other LaRouchies. The arbcom ruling strictly prohibits this behavior. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Let's address my concerns above. If you are concerned about Rohatyn, then let's edit the name out and work with HK's material from that standpoint. The cites will remain and can be followed by interested party's and no googling will do as you indicate above. I would suggest just taking out the part "The Rohatyn Center....and picking up with Middlebury College, then with the sentence Sponsored, lets say "Sponsored in part by Woodrow Wilson..." skipping the Rohatyn reference all together, if that is bothering you. Even without those two parts I mentioned, the article is still readable and relevant for this. --Northmeister 00:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My re-wording ...asking for all comments please

"Privatization of U.S. national security In October of 2004, a conference was held at Middlebury College, entitled "The Privatization of National Security." Sponsored in part by the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, the conference discussed privatization of functions which historically have been considered the sole province of the military and of official intelligence agencies of the United States government.[1] One participant, Peter Feaver, said that "In fact what we’re seeing is a return to neo-feudalism. If you think about how the East India Company played a role in the rise of the British Empire, there are similar parallels to the rise of the American quasi-empire."

The conference discuss what is called by some 'outsourcing' of key factors in the intelligence and military capabilities of the United States. Such 'outsourcing' is however different from private sector outsourcing, since it involves the transfer of once government related services to the private sector, which in the United States is simply called 'privatization'. [2]"

The above is my rewording of Hk's addition to the article. It removes the objections of Slimvirgin above, while addressing the concerns of those who feel the conference was about out-sourcing (I fully understand these terms by the way), and how out-sourcing governmental functions is a part of privatizing governmental service..perfectly legitimate for inclusion. I accept all comments. Do not revert without discussion. Let's work together on this. What do people think? HK? Slimvirgin? others above? --Northmeister 01:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The new wording's better for me, although Feaver does note in the article we link to that he's not an expert in this area, so I'm unsure about using that particular quote out of all the others we could use. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Your recent edits make the wording flow better and are acceptable to me. Your point about the quote has a point, but it does represent a strong sentiment (and growing) in the USA over privatization. HK, what do you think? --Northmeister 02:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I still see no reason behind including the section other than appeasing Herschel, which is not something we are bound to do, given the arbcom rulings. The transfer of once government related services to the private sector is often called "privatization," although the more correct term is outsourcing. While the distinction might not be too important in public discussions about policy, the subject of this article is a technical term in economics. The article needs a lot of work to tighten coverage and to establish more clear boundaries of the subject. Herschel's paragraph only weaken the focus needed to make this into a usable article someday. 172 | Talk 03:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You are right, we as editor's are never bound to appease anyone. What we are bound to do is respect them however and consider their contributions in fair-light. If they are 'LaRouche' persons as HK has said he is, so be it. It is quite obvious the light of scrutiny burns brightly into that corner. HK, I am sure, is aware of this treatment. What is important, is whether his contributions were made in good faith and are not sourced to 'censored' material. Since Arbcom has 'censored' LaRouche websites; then it is fair game to revert edits where these websites are used except when directly related and 'highly relevant' reasons exist to use them. I disagree with this outright censorship because it violates the spirit of wikipedia, but I have no power over Arbcom or the decision itself and like yourself am bound to uphold it as a good wikipedian and will when the case arises to do so. THIS IS NOT ONE OF THOSE CASES, especially since the wording change. --- You keep stating that the technical term is 'out-sourcing', that simply is not right. When the government transfers services to the private sector it is engaged in privatization of services. You are simply mincing words here. Out-sourcing is primarily used in the common lexicon to describe the actions in the private sector of replacing domestic workers (American) with off-shore workers (foreigners). It may well be used to describe an activity associated with privatization overall however. Corporatization is also related and most often used in other countries to describe the process we in America call 'privatization'. I don't think HK's addition harms the article - in fact it helps it. It allows the reader to know of what privatization is, and what it affects overall. In fact, more cases like HK's should be presented, not less; to indicate privatizations effects. --Northmeister 04:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC) PS. Consider the opening paragraph which is accurate: "Privatization (sometimes privatisation, denationalization, or, especially in India, disinvestment) is the process of transferring property, from public ownership to private ownership and/or transferring the management of a service or activity from the government to the private sector. The reverse process is nationalization or municipalization." This is what that meeting described by HK in his edit was all about - privatization of governmental services etc. --Northmeister 04:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
To review, HK sought to back up his unsupported assertion that the privatization of national security functions is already a reality by quoting Rohatyn. However, the Rohatyn quotation is not about privatization (the transfer of public assets, institutions, or authority to the private sector); it's about outsourcing. The distinction is not a matter of "mincing words here." The contracting out of non-core operations from production within the firm itself-- private or public-- to a subcontractor that specializes in that operation is not unique to the public sector. In other words, defense outsourcing can be understood by the same logic that drives outsourcing in a large private corporation, rather than (say) the logic underpinning the classic case of privatization (the selling of electricity, gas, and telecommunication industries undertaken by the Thatcher government after 1979). If you want to make the case that the distinction does not matter in this case, that's original research on the part of you and HK, as you do not point to a soure backing up that assertion. 172 | Talk 05:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
The quotation you speak of was taken out. The assertion you make of original research is foolish and illogical. Privatization involves transfering property and services once performed by government to the private sector, including 'privatizing' services through contract. What Thatcher did is also privatization or corporatization as it is called. I am making no case of distinction here; as it is not needed. When government transfers management of a particular service or activity to the private sector that is a form of privatization. This article is about privatization in all its facets, not just the narrow notion you speak of that would exclude almost all the activity traditionally accepted as privatizing in the United States. It seems original research is not my problem here. --Northmeister 06:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC) -I want to further add that much of this article is unsourced, especially the claims of academia section and the alternatives section which is confusing and needs cleaning up. --Northmeister 06:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Northmeister, I don't know enough about this to say whether Americans call outsourcing "privatization." Could you provide a source showing that the terms are used interchangeably? SlimVirgin (talk) 07:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Only those of us who lack a background in economics do. Outsourcing is contracting out for certain services formerly accomplished by internal production. Both public and private sector organizations outsource. Privatization goes further than outsourcing by implying transfer of ownership, assets, or authority into the private sector. The process by which the Pentagon buys services and goods from the private sector is understood as "outsourcing" in policy and academic circles here in the United States. Those describing the process of outsourcing followed by the Pentagon as "privatization" are usually political activists on the far-left (or, as we see here, LaRouchies) using the term in a polemical sense, or confused, thinking that the terms can be used interchangeably. 172 | Talk 07:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
The debate on this point is essentially a bogus one, because if 172 would take the trouble to review the quote from Rohatyn, he would find that Rohatyn uses both terms: "As these figures reflect, key military functions have been outsourced to private companies; both Democratic and Republican presidents alike have steadily privatised crucial aspects of US national security."
The debate about "promotion of LaRouche" is also entirely bogus. Just as George Bush tries to argue every issue by bringing up September 11, the POV posse which includes 172 and SlimVirgin attempts to couch every debate in terms of the everpresent danger of creeping international LaRouchism. Northmeister's point is straightforward enough; the fact that Lyndon LaRouche strongly supports, for example, Heliocentrism, does not give you license to conduct a witch-hunt against every editor who appears to support a heliocentric view of the solar system. Since LaRouche did not originate the concept of heliocentrism, advocacy of heliocentrism does not represent promotion of LaRouche. I know exactly what the ArbCom decisions say, and I abide by them scrupulously. To quote Special Counsel for the Army Joseph Welch, "Have you no sense of decency?" --HK 08:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
The only reason LaRouche gets mentioned around here is because you are constantly promoting him. Now, we have already explained why your Rohatyn-baiting is irrelevant. See the explanations directed to Northmeister. Your arguments for including the paragraph have been refuted. You are just being disruptive at this stage... And by the way, if you're interested in demonstrating that you have any sense of decency yourself, why not repudiate LaRouche's decades of anti-Semitic defamation against Rohatyn? [8] LaRouche's anti-Semitic attacks against Rohatyn were documented in 1986 by Dennis King: On the first point, the LaRouchians have a long history of equating gays with Jews. In the late 1970s, they raved against the " politics" of "Zionist-supporting" gay activists, but they also targeted Jews who were not part of the  : A LaRouchian cartoon strip depicted New York financier Felix Rohatyn (regarded by the LaRouchians as a central figure in the world Jewish conspiracy) as participating in a banquet with other prominent New York Jews, including Mayor Edward I. Koch, (labeled the "Emperor of Homohatten"), and union leader Albert Shanker (labeled "Albertius Judus"). [9] 172 | Talk 09:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Please, keep on subject. The above has no place here. Again, who the 'heck' cares what LaRouche thinks, calls, or whatever. What matters is this article and the inclusion of material HK had originally added, and I and Slimvirgin worked on to clean up. There is also a question on the definition and you keep going off on a LaRouche tirade. We get it already. Please stay on topic. See below for the definition of privatization. As far a notability, yeah look at the participants at this meeting...quite notable; also it is better to have more than too little information, if it is accurate. The purpose is to inform, not to re-define the traditional definition of privatization as accepted; you seem to want to do that; and that is original research. --Northmeister 23:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
The above was a point-by-point reply to Herschelkrustofsky. If you don't want me pointing out how vile the views of LaRouche are, tell Herschelkrustofsky to stop baiting me and other users. 172 | Talk 01:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

  • Is a conference on the Privatization of National Security notable? Is Middlebury College a front for Lyndon LaRouche?

I removed "Is Middlebury College a front for Lyndon LaRouche?" from the RfC because I don't see anyone suggesting that. -Will Beback 22:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

172 deleted my original edit, a description of the conference which was sourced entirely to the conference transcript, calling it "LaRouche propaganda." --HK 03:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question on wording

Northmeister, I don't know enough about this to say whether Americans call outsourcing "privatization." Could you provide a source showing that the terms are used interchangeably? SlimVirgin (talk) 07:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Here is a few quotes of the interchangability and use and their sources:
  • "The term "privatization" typically refers to shifting the delivery of services performed by public employees to private businesses. This usually occurs in the form of contracting out (also called "outsourcing"), whereby public organizations enter into contracts with private companies for the delivery of services." [10]
  • "Contracting Out (also called "outsourcing"). The government competitively contracts with a private organization, for-profit or non-profit, to provide a service or part of a service." [11]
  • "In February, the Department of Defense will announce its first selections of military support functions suitable for outsourcing -- a move which amounts to a near revolution for the armed forces.....Economists predict that privatization of these functions and services should also improve the efficiency and responsiveness of the defense infrastructure. Experts say that -- with the support of Congress -- privatization could be the most important defense management initiative of the post-Cold War period." [12]
  • "Privatization - Federal = As Congress considers appropriations bills that ban competition in some federal agencies, Reason offers those involved answers to the twelve most commonly asked questions about competition and outsourcing at the federal level." [13]
  • "Privatization is "the act of reducing the role of government or increasing the role of the private sector in an activity or the ownership of assets." When people refer to privatization, they usually mean one of four types:
  1. Awarding franchises to private firms to operate government facilities; in some states charter schools operate like this, for example:
  2. Vouchers distributed to citizens who then purchase services from a private provider
  3. Sale of public assets to the private sector
  4. Contracting with a private corporation to provide services, such as managing public schools, custodial, transportation or food services, managing social service programs, collecting child support payments, running correctional facilities or providing waste disposal." [14] --Northmeister 23:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Sarah, Northmeister is confused here. As I said earlier, outsourcing is contracting out for certain services formerly accomplished by internal production. Both public and private sector organizations outsource. Privatization goes further than outsourcing by implying transfer of ownership, assets, or authority into the private sector. The process by which the Pentagon buys services and goods from the private sector is understood as "outsourcing" in policy and academic circles here in the United States. Those describing the process of outsourcing followed by the Pentagon as "privatization" are usually political activists using the term in a polemical sense, or confused, thinking that the terms can be used interchangeably. 172 | Talk 02:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

That simply is not true. See above. Do not revert credible edits with citations that are relevant. I am beginning to think you are only here to disrupt this article. As far as your above statement on meaning, see above for enlightenment. --Northmeister 04:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Wow, this must be a first. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 04:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
There's hope for world peace afterall. :-) --Northmeister 04:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

Due to the edit war reported on AN/I, I've protected this article. Discuss this battle. Also, Northmeister? Don't use "rvv" unless you're actually reverting vandalism. It's clear that these edits are not vandalism, but rather a difference of opinion. --Golbez 06:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

True, stand corrected. Thanks. --Northmeister 06:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

My review of the history is that there is clear consensus that the conference at Middlebury is irrelevant to the article. An edit restricted to the contents of the paper given there might be significant; but producing one would require actually reading the papers cited, not just grabbing a random quotation. Septentrionalis 06:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The quotation was removed. The edit concerns privatization of national security and is legitimate to this articles topic. There should be more under this section for the reader. The conference at 'Middlebury' included individuals who make it significant and as you mentioned the citations indicate why it is included. Consensus does not hold to removing it; opinion is divided among those interested. The main concerns have been addressed, and now the most quoted concern is because HK added it. Which is not right to single a person out because they belong to a certain group if their edit is legitimate (he has not violated Arbcom). Do you approve of this form of treatment which smacks of institutional discrimination based on affiliation? That is prohibited in the USA by Civil Rights Laws and it is highly wrong. --Northmeister 06:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
So far you and HK have only offered one piece of evidence that the privatization of national security has already been overtaken, which was a quotation about defense outsourcing, not privatization, and thus irrelevant. Further, your claim that the treatment of LaRouche activists on Wikipedia is "institutional discrimination" and thus "prohibited in the USA by Civil Rights Laws" is utterly absurd. Wikipedia is a private organization owned by the Wikimedia Foundation. Participation in Wikipedia is voluntary and not bound by any contract; Wikipedia users are not employees. Individual Wikipedia users have no right execpt the right to stop contributing. In the same sense, if one owns a house, he or she is free to discriminate regarding who is allowed to enter; and those entering are free to leave on their own accord. 172 | Talk 06:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
First I said it smacks of it. Second, Wikipedia is an open forum, like a private restaurant, and access denied to individuals based on affiliation would be against U.S. Civil Rights Law and standards. But that is a moot point. The point is this article, and the inclusion of the edit, which is only objected to, it seems to me, because HK added it. Your observations about his edit don't make sense if you read the linked source. Read the source and then comment is all I can offer. If you want to discuss this, and I am open to your views, then do so without any further statements about the editors but rather substance of the edit. I am willing to hear you on that account. I still see no legitimate argument yet. --Northmeister 06:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC) -Further the quotes I provide above indicate you don't understand the terms privatization and out-sourcing. --Northmeister 07:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a voluntary association. Thus, it may adopt its own rules and regulations that are to be binding on its members. On Wikipedia, the arbitration committee has delcared that no one is entitled to engage in LaRouche activism... Regarding the substance of the edits, I am not the one who is confused about the distinction between privatization and outsourcing. While some anti-business activists believe that they can use the terms interchangeably, the distinction is important. Issuing a government contract to a private firm is not privatization in itself. The activity remains in the state budget and authority, regardless of whether it's performed by contractors or government employees... I keep on removing HK's paragraph not because HK is a LaRouche activist, but because the paragraph is irrelevant. National security privatization remains a new theory. While you and HK have cited examples of defense outsourcing, these examples are irrelevant because, as I keep stating over and over again, government outsourcing is not necessarily privatization. 172 | Talk 07:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Look this is getting nowhere because you keep stating 'government outsourcing' which is also called 'contracting out' and is according to mainstream and orthodox definition 'privatization' or part thereof, is not 'privatization' or as you admit above 'not necessarily so'. Well, I have provided numerous citations indicating my position. Verifiability of statements is important here at Wikipedia. What are your sources for your statement above? Or are you engaged in 'original research' and development of your own definition of 'privatization' which are prohibited here at Wikipedia? Your sources? Let's compare notes. --Northmeister 14:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Sources? Still waiting? --Northmeister 00:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
You are wasting my time. I have been researching economic history professionally before most Wikipedia users were born. I can provide a mountain of sources verifying my claim. You, however, have only provided that one quotation, which, as I have explained over and over again is about outsourcing. Since you have made the claim that the difference is immaterial, the onus is on you to cite your source. I'm not the one who should be burdened with writing the reading list. 172 | Talk 03:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
More claims without proof. Now you are confusing me with HK! But, I provided several definitions earlier - here they are for you again:

":Yes. Here is a few quotes of the interchangability and use and their sources:

  • "The term "privatization" typically refers to shifting the delivery of services performed by public employees to private businesses. This usually occurs in the form of contracting out (also called "outsourcing"), whereby public organizations enter into contracts with private companies for the delivery of services." [15]
  • Uh, this is a piece of anti-privatization/outsouring propaganda. This is not a valid source. 172 | Talk 03:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The NEA is a credible source by all definitions. You are correct however in that they oppose privatization. But that is a moot point. The point is definition of 'privatization' and I show over and over again its true definition which includes out-sourcing. You have provided no credible source for 'your' definition. Where are your sources? --Northmeister 03:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
They are not interested in the theory per se. They are not economists writing on economic theory. For future reference, I will no longer respond to links to pages from advocacy groups. 172 | Talk 03:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • "Contracting Out (also called "outsourcing"). The government competitively contracts with a private organization, for-profit or non-profit, to provide a service or part of a service." [16]
  • The page (correctly points out): Contracting Out (also called "outsourcing"). The government competitively contracts with a private organization, for-profit or non-profit, to provide a service or part of a service. That's correct. It is also not the source backing up the claim that outsourcing is not distinct from privatization, as you claim it is. 172 | Talk 03:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I make no claims. I have simply insisted that the definition of privatization includes outsourcing, as the above shows. You claim it does not to argue to delete HK's edit. YOu have provided no credible source that 'privatization' does not include out-sourcing. Where are your sources? This is an encylcopedia, not a political website to create original definitions, that is in fact prohibited here at Wikipedia. Where are your sources for your claim? --Northmeister 03:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
No, let's back up here. You are arguing that HK's paragraph on defense outsourcing should stay. Others say that it doesn't belong because privatization of national security is not a concrete policy yet. You say that it is, poiting to evidence of defense outsourcing, which you claim is the same as privatization. The claim that national security outsourcing can be understood as privatization is the claim that requires the source, not what I am saying. Again, although many media commentators often use the term interchangeably, economists understand privatization as going further than outsourcing by implying transfer of ownership, assets, or authority into the private sector. The process by which the Pentagon buys services and goods from the private sector is understood as "outsourcing" in policy and academic circles here in the United States. HK's paragraph is irrelevant. Give it up. 172 | Talk 03:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
More claims about economists without sources. What economists? What sources? That is what I ask for discussion. This is not a trivial matter. A good encyclopedia requires sources. You provide none. You make claims of fact without source material to back up your fact. That is sophistic and polemic, it is not factual discussion. Where are your sources for the numerous claims you make? This article is about privatization and thus should cover its mutiple facets, including HK's edit, which indicates out-sourcing of national security, just one facet. In fact this is alluded to by one of my sources below. Again, sources for your above claims on economists and source for your definition, that is a legitimate question. --Northmeister 04:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • "In February, the Department of Defense will announce its first selections of military support functions suitable for outsourcing -- a move which amounts to a near revolution for the armed forces.....Economists predict that privatization of these functions and services should also improve the efficiency and responsiveness of the defense infrastructure. Experts say that -- with the support of Congress -- privatization could be the most important defense management initiative of the post-Cold War period." [17]
  • Nothing in the article backs up your claim that outsourcing describes the same thing as privatization. The subject of this article is defense sub-contracting. 03:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The title of the page is: "Privatization Issues" and it correctly involves out-sourcing which is also called contracting out. Your arguments are not logical and are very polemical. You don't seem to accept reason (by the way Reason is one of my sources and they are pro-Privatization) and not a Union. --Northmeister 03:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I did not say that that particular page is anti-privatization. I was making that comment about another link. Just because the title is "Privatization Issues" and outsourcing is discussed under the title is irrelevant. I am not seeing the explict argument that the difference between the two terms is immaterial. 172 | Talk 03:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
It is not a matter of difference because out-sourcing is one of the forms of privatization as there are many. You claim to be an economist and yet you do not understand this? The sources provided here prove over and over again the mainstream definition of privatization and ALL that it includes; as does the opening paragraph to this article here; which makes HK's edit after cleaning up - sufficient for this article. You claim a definition of privatization without sources and that does not meet wikipedia standards of Verifiability; which is one of the core standards and rules of wikipedia. Where are your sources? Let us consider them? Why haven't you provided your source? You claim expertise, it shouldn't be to hard! Source please? --Northmeister 03:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • "Privatization - Federal = As Congress considers appropriations bills that ban competition in some federal agencies, Reason offers those involved answers to the twelve most commonly asked questions about competition and outsourcing at the federal level." [18]
  • "Privatization is "the act of reducing the role of government or increasing the role of the private sector in an activity or the ownership of assets." When people refer to privatization, they usually mean one of four types:
  1. Awarding franchises to private firms to operate government facilities; in some states charter schools operate like this, for example:
  2. Vouchers distributed to citizens who then purchase services from a private provider
  3. Sale of public assets to the private sector
  4. Contracting with a private corporation to provide services, such as managing public schools, custodial, transportation or food services, managing social service programs, collecting child support payments, running correctional facilities or providing waste disposal." [19] --Northmeister 23:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)" --Northmeister 03:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC) Now for your sources please? What source do you provide to define 'privatization' the way you do? You can claim whatever ever you want, without proof it means nothing. -- Northmeister 03:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. You are posting another link to a union with an anti-'privatization' agenda. This is not a valid source. 172 | Talk 03:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I provide many sources, not just one. As far as the Union you speak of, which? Where is your source for your definition of 'privatization'? I have provided numerous sources for the accepted definition, and not just from unions or whatnot. --Northmeister 03:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest an RfC be filed if necessary. I will remove protection within 24 hours of the last violation of protection by an admin. At least this spurred some chat. My feeling? 172 seems to be correct here. Which means the page was protected on the "wrong version", which is exactly how it should be. --Golbez 03:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Northmeister, your links were a waste of time for me to go through. Two were anti-privatization propaganda pieces (by the way, I happen to agree with their politics), not valid sources on economic theory. The others had nothing to do with the relationship between privatization and outsourcing. BTW, do a Google search for "diference between outsourcing and privatization" and similar variations of that phase and see what you get. There is a difference. I'm not making this up. When it comes to subjects that I research professionally, I don't on Wikipedia. 172 | Talk 03:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

More of the same. Instead of addressing me, address my question. Where are your sources that privatization does not include out-sourcing, which is the claim you make to delete HK's edit. You have been asked numerous times and you provide no source. I have provided sources to mainstream organizations including the NEA in order to show how privatization is defined overall. You made a claim earlier that I was wrong or somehow uninformed. You make claims of knowledge without offering credible sources contradicting the sources above. Again, Source for your definition; which leads you to want to delete HK's edit? --Northmeister 03:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Again, try my tip regarding the Google search. I'm not interested in doing your own homework for you. You made the controverisal claim, attempted to back it up with a bunch of random, unrelated wesbite links. I no longer consider it productive to discuss this matter with you. We can open this discussion up to more users. So far you and HK are alone on this matter. 172 | Talk 04:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Source for your definition and source for your claims on 'economists'? The sources above are enough to keep HK's edit, and meet wikipedia standards. You have provided none. You answer me with 'do your homework' and 'only you and HK'. You should read what wikipedia is not, and consider that verifiability is a high standard. All I ask for is sources for your reasons to delete HK's material when there are numerous sources to keep it. So I ask again, so we may discuss this matter. Sources? --Northmeister 04:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Your sources for keeping it were irrelevant. Your mixing up the burden of proof here; it's on the poster to demonstrate it's relevance, not on the person taking it down who is questioning its relevance. 172 | Talk 04:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Why is is so hard for you to provide your 'so-called' sources and economists that give the definition you state to delete HK's edit? What is so hard with that? I support the edit, and have addressed your concerns earlier with Rohatyn et. al. Now the claim is on your definition of 'privatization' which is not correct. I provide sources to indicate this, and you are asked to provide sources for your claim, so the community can know how to judge our claims of definition. Sources is all I want so a legitimate discussion can be engaged in. I have seen none provided. Just constant diversions. Sources please for your definition and the economists you claim? My sources irrelevant? According to which economist and according to what sources of yours? --Northmeister 04:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Page unprotected. --Golbez 07:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Columbia Encyclopedia presents 'Privatization' in the following manner: "Privatization,. the reverse process, has become widespread, however, with socialism's loss of credibility. Great Britain sold off many of its public companies, such as British Telecom; France sold 65 state-owned companies in 1988; and the collapse of Communist dictatorships in E Europe and the former Soviet Union has inspired large-scale privatization in some of the nations in that region, in some instances after distributing government shares to the public. Housing has also been privatized on a large scale in Britain, and privatization has been proposed for public housing in the United States. Underdeveloped nations, too, have begun to privatize. In the United States, the term has also been broadly applied to the contracting out of the management of public schools, prisons, airports, sanitation services, and a variety of other government-owned institutions, especially at the state and local levels." - Contracting out is the same as 'out-sourcing' which is discussed in the edit HK provided, which is included in the definitions I provide from other sources (contested by 172 on the grounds of partisanship); thus another encyclopedic look above. Further consider this article from Middlebury College's news release:
  • "Experts convene at Middlebury College Oct. 9 to discuss privatization of American national security -- Middlebury, Vt.—With national elections just around the corner, the debate over the war on terror, the war in Iraq, and the privatization or “outsourcing” of American national security has intensified in the United States. On Saturday, Oct. 9, policy experts from the U.S. government, military and private sectors, and academia will gather at the Rohatyn Center for International Affairs at Middlebury College for a day-long conference titled “The Privatization of American National Security” to explore this topic. All conference events are open only to Middlebury College faculty, staff, students and alumni, but journalists are encouraged to attend." [20] Also follow this link to a paper by an actual Academic on the subject of 'national security privatization' [21] --Northmeister 14:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section removed

I removed the section (despite the article being protected - see WP:IAR) because it is transparently inappropriate in its present form. It was placed under "Notable privatisations" but is neither notable nor describing an actual privatization. The conference would probably not be significant enough to mention in national security privatization - academic conferences are rarely significant enough to be mentioned anywhere - never mind in such a primary subject article as Privatization. Moreover the current content is any case speculative and unencylopedic. If someone wants to start national security privatization then with sufficient development it may merit a mention in the main article - but that's a discussion for a time when there is actually some content.

This is not (or not entirely) to pre-empt discussion on whether the section is appropriate in its current form. But the onus is entirely on those who want it to attempt to demonstrate this. This is why I have removed the section immediately. Rd232 talk 19:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It is entirely inappropriate to break the rules of procedure on this. It was Jersey Devil who whined that a revert war was happening in the first place. You have shown your entire lack of respect for wikipedia with what you have done. --Northmeister 00:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC) - I wish to further add that no sources exist for the above assertions and I still await them. --Northmeister 00:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
It is extremely inappropriate for you to abuse your admin powers by editing the very section that the conflict is about. I'm putting it back, and I sincerely suggest you do not use your administrator abilities in this fashion again. --Golbez 01:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Equally sincerely, see my comment on WP:ANI. Rd232 talk 04:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Northmeister, Wikipeida is an encyclopedia. If someone attempts to use Wikilawyering to undercut the goal of writing an encyclopedia, then we are to ignore the misplaced rules. 172 | Talk 03:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Sources please? Where are they for your definition of 'privatization'? Oh, remember the above next time (post a reminder to self)...thanks. To me it is just an excuse to disrupt proper editing and discussion; and to use personal attack followed by rule breaking, followed by the above. --Northmeister 03:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The onus is on you to come up with the source that the distinction is immaterial. By the way, it's interesting that the users who have a formal background in economics (Rd323 and myself) are the ones stressing the careful usage of the terms. 172 | Talk 03:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Sources for both of your assertions above please? I continue to ask, provide mine, and you provide polemics. This is a discussion to decipher verifiable fact, and you refuse to provide a verifiable source for your assertion of 'your' defintion - Source? --Northmeister 03:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
See my posts above. And, by the way, you have things mixed up. If someone makes a claim, the burden is on the person making the claim to support it, not on others to falisfy it. I have been reluctant to give you a reading list in principle because I am not the one making the disputed claim (i.e. your claim that the difference between privatization and outsourcing is immaterial). 172 | Talk 03:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Numerous sources indicate it is. They are above. Privatization is a broad term that includes 'out-sourcing' as the sources provided indicate over and over again. HK's edit is therefore warranted. You make the claim of definition that has no basis in fact and you have been asked for sources to verify your claim and you provide none. You have claimed 'many economists' etc. and have been asked which and who; and you do not state as such. Again your source contradicting the sources which all agree above and indicate HK's edit stays as it has been cleaned up by Slimvirgin and myself; and supported in that version by HK and SamSpade earlier. --Northmeister 04:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
No, "privatization" often used as a catch-all phase by media commentators who don't know what the terms they use mean, but, contrary to the belief of many who do not have formal backgrounds in economics, privatization goes beyond outsourcing for the reasons I have stated earlier. If you don't believe me DO YOUR OWN HOMEWORK. 172 | Talk 04:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Web Blogs and discussion's are credible sources? By who's definition? Thank you for the google. If your basing your definition of blogs and discussion groups then I am afraid that does not meet standards of verifiability. You have made a claim to be an economist. You claim to know the definition. Yet you cannot provide one credible source to contradict my definition other than blogs and user groups found by googling. --Northmeister 04:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I did not say that webblogs and discussions are credible sources. I am not an economist, I am a historian, with one of my main focuses on economic history. The Google search was to give you an idea of where to start a search for doing your reading because I assume that you do not have access to academic journals that require a paid subscription, not where I get my information. 172 | Talk 14:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
More claims without proof or an ability to check on your information. Just to note, I have a degree in History and Political Science. You continue to come very close to attacking me personally with your constant assumptions on my intelligence or lack of knowledge when I have provided numerous sources (online sources) to indicate the proper definition of Privatization. You have provided none. You claim to be a Historian now. Fine, then as a historian you must have sources indicating what you claim.. Provide them. I would like to take a look at your claims. Otherwise your claims are invalid. Your reverting just now is invalid on those grounds! --Northmeister 15:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Remark: Nobody has seriously attempted to explain how this irrelevant academic conference deserves a mention here. Nobody has seriously attempted to explain why we shouldn't start national security privatization and resume discussion when there's some content in it. The latter would be far more productive than wikilawyering about the definition of privatisation in an effort to justify the inclusion of a section which is misleading, speculative, US-centric, and tangential to the main subject. Rd232 talk 05:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

One of the items which was deleted by edit warriors was a quote from a prominent proponent of National Security privatization, which provided concrete figures as to the extent to which such privatization has already taken place. This removes it from the realm of the hypothetical. This should be discussed, but I think that reverting a protected page under the rubric of IAR is a bit over the top. --HK 07:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
And a 195-word block quote isn't? In any case, it takes two to edit war, and neither side tried to rewrite the content from the blockquote in a form that might be encyclopedic (perhaps partly because the rest of it wasn't anyway). Nor has anybody explained why this can't be hashed out in an appropriate subtopic article, where the topic can be given more serious and detailed consideration. That way we might even get enough material to definitively get rid of that conference bit without upsetting anybody (by replacing it with better material). Rd232 talk 12:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
HK, if you feel that quote or portion thereof would clear up the matter or remove it from the hypothetical, then by all means provide that quote with its proper citation. Another suggestion is that the whole edit be placed under its own titled rather than 'notable'. I've heard the edit is 'misleading', 'speculative', 'US-centric'? Rd232, I am not an adversary here. Just explain to me how and why you think so in clear and convincing manner. I am opposed to starting national security privatization at the moment; but I will hear your arguments why you think this should be done. The purpose of this article, any article, is to inform the reader. My major contention above with 172 especially is the 'definition' of privatization taken by himself is to limited for any purpose and not the one accepted as the normal definition as the sources I provide indicate. --Northmeister 12:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Misleading - look at the TOC: heading 5.1 (US natsec privatisation) as the only subheading under 5 (Notable privatisations) is clearly misleading. Speculative - without the long blockquote there's no hard content that is encylopedic. US-centric - you don't need me to explain that. I've explained repeatedly why a subarticle would be helpful (in any case this should be obvious!), and the fact that nobody has actually given anything resembling a reason was a significant factor in my removing the section while the article was protected; my ability to assume good faith was severely stretched at that moment. Rd232 talk 12:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Definitional issues are one example of what could be hashed out better in a subarticle: describe what's happening, what experts say the trend is, figure out what to call it. Rd232 talk 12:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Misleading: On this I agree that it can be misleading. I proposed above that a another heading be used rather than putting it under 'notable.' Speculative: I suggest a portion of the quote HK speaks of be given to put the edit in context and that further information be included providing more context. US-cenric: Although it is obvious the sub-section is US-centric, as it indicates by its title, the entire article is not. Since the article should cover the broad ranging idea of 'Privatization' I feel it is necessary to include what HK added in addition to other examples from other nations like the United Kingdom under Thatcher. If you look at Privatization.org or Reason.com they provide a clear list of what 'Privatization' is and examples of such in brief could be included for the reader; although it is not necessary to go into extensive detail. Your observation on creating a 'national security privatization' is a interesting; but I feel that it is unecessary at the moment. Like I wrote, I am willing to listen to reasonable discussion; and to work this out with you on reasonable grounds. --Northmeister 13:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources needed for claim

User 172 has claimed that "defense outsourcing is not privatization," as his reason for his present reversion of the article. Please provide the sources for the community's review. All other sources [22] (pdf)[23][24][25][26][27] indicate that it is including this release "With national elections just around the corner, the debate over the war on terror, the war in Iraq, and the privatization or “outsourcing” of American national security has intensified in the United States." --Northmeister 15:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Consider "The Other Army" by Daniel Bergner, which was published in the New York Times. --Northmeister 16:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LaRouche source for the disputed paragraph confirmed

I am removing the following paragraph again:

In October 2004, a conference was held at Middlebury College, entitled "The Privatization of National Security." Sponsored in part by the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, the conference discussed the privatization of functions historically considered the sole province of the military and intelligence agencies of the United States government. One participant, Peter Feaver, said that: "In fact what we’re seeing is a return to neo-feudalism. If you think about how the East India Company played a role in the rise of the British Empire, there are similar parallels to the rise of the American quasi-empire."

A March 31, 2006 article hot off the press of the LaRouche cult "Executive Intelligence Review" confirms my suspicion that the disputed paragraph is indeed LaRouche material. The source is article entitled "Rohatyn, Shultz, Cheney 'Privatization' Scheme To Wreck U.S. National Security" by LaRouche cultist Jeffery Steinberg:

On Oct. 9, 2004, two leading American figures in the International Synarchy, George Shultz and Felix Rohatyn, teamed up in an assault upon the national sovereignty and national security of the United States. Under the auspices of George P. Shultz's Princeton Project on National Security, the Rohatyn Center for International Affairs at Middlebury College, and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, jointly sponsored a conference promoting "The Privatization of National Security," at the Middlebury College campus in Vermont. The conference brought together a dozen or so academics, former government officials, and retired military officers to chart out the vast expansion of the privatization of military functions, through PMCs—private military companies. [28]

Further, Steinberg's ramblings are indeed the source for the comment about the East India Company and "neo-feudalism":

The general theme of the Rohatyn-hosted conference was summed up by Peter Feaver, the director of the Triangle Institute for Security Studies at Duke University, who gushed, "In fact, what we're seeing is a return to neo-feudalism. If you think about how the East India Company played a role in the rise of the British Empire, there are similar parallels to the rise of the American quasi-empire."

Not only is the insertion of LaRouche material in non-LaRouche related articles against arbcom rulings, the possibility of cultists who believe in an global conspiracy of "International Synarchy" contaminating the contents of the encyclopedia risks severe embarrassment of Wikipedia. I will continue to revert any attempt to insert LaRouche propaganda in this article. 172 | Talk 06:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

More garbage from the above user. The fact that LaRouche publishes material on this matter is irrelevant. He has also published material in the past on Alito and other matters that concern him and his political organization. Again and again above USER 172 is engaging in personal attack using the material of two Marxist oriented persons King and Berlet who are not well known to accuse LaRouche's organization as a cult. It shows the above users agenda and affiliation. Further, LaRouche publications as indicated above issued their article on MARCH 31st, 2006 - the edit by HK was added MARCH 24th, 2006 and has since been cleaned up by several editors. The blatant ORIGINAL RESEARCH conducted above to smear the editor HK as a cultist, and to engage in disgusting personal attack on other editors who defend his edit as worthy based on numerous REFERENCES not related to LaRouche is beyond reproach. Lastly, the above USER 172, refuses to provide sources for his original objections based on HIS definition of 'privatization' even though he claims to be a Historian. His past edits which have attempted to smear past Presidents like Theodore Roosevelt as a Racist, and which have added numerous edits to American history related articles that have be blatantly insensitive to the American people not to mention false, is indication further of the agenda this editor has to spread propaganda against the United States, its history, and any persons who speak on issues related to the history of my people and country. I condemn his actions above and his past edits against the good compassionate people of the United States and their historic leaders. Hate should not be accepted here at Wikipedia. Again I ask 172 - SOURCES? --Northmeister 14:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I reverted for the same fundamental reason I have given before: this conference is not relevant to this article. For an academic conference to achieve enough notability to be worth mentioning, it has to be a very focussed article on a very narrow topic. Privatization does not qualify. Ergo no academic conferences of any stripe should be mentioned here. Furthermore, if it weren't for my previous involvement I would block you for the above personal attack on User:172. If I were you I'd apologise before someone else does. Rd232 talk 14:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I really don't give a damn. User 172 by his past edits has attempted to smear Theodore Roosevelt and written badly about the United States. That is a fact.
  • "in 1898, and its building of a powerful navy—the Great White Fleet—under the slain McKinley’s more “big stick”, racist, and militarist successor, Theodore Roosevelt." - For his time Theodore Roosevelt was a liberal on Civil Rights issues, including Woman's Rights issues. Roosevelt invited some of the first African-Americans to the White House etc. You have to judge all past men by their times, not ours...Racist is a loaded word, and Roosevelt was not one by all standards of History.
  • "America entered the so-called Cold War to protect its overseas economic interests" - America entered the Cold War to prevent the world and Europe from takeover by the Soviet Union and tyrannical Communism. Our economy was not built on Trade at the time; we were only 3-4% dependent on trade thanks to our protective past ushered in by Lincoln and only recently reversed (in part) by FDR (though he built internal protections and followed reciprocity here).
  • "In fact, the rapid turn to imperialism in the late nineteenth century can be correlated with cyclically spaced economic depressions that adversely affected many elite groups. Like the Long Depression, an era of increasing unemployment and deflated prices for manufactured goods, the Panic of 1893 contributed to fierce competition over markets in the growing ‘spheres of influence’ of the United States, which tended to overlap with Britain’s—especially in the Pacific and South America." - BULL...America was not imperialistic. The Spanish-American War resulted in our acquiring possessions most in America did not want. America freed Cuba, the Philippines etc. from Spanish Imperialism. We fought alongside freedom fighters in Cuba when Theodore Roosevelt and his Rough Riders (mixture of cowboys, college guys, and native-Americans) charged up San Juan (Kettle) Hill. America has always upheld the 'Monroe Doctrine' in the Western Hemisphere to prevent European or any other powers from taking over or attempting to colonize Latin America, to allow those nations freedom from intrusion. We intervened in Venezuela under President Roosevelt to prevent Germany from doing this; and prevented Spain from recapturing her colonies after the Napoleonic Wars.
HIS EDITS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES! I would gladly accept blocking in defense of my country's honor. - To revert an edit that is backed by numerous sources that indicate its relevance to this article is wrong.
  • All other sources [29] (pdf)[30][31][32][33][34] indicate that it is including this release "With national elections just around the corner, the debate over the war on terror, the war in Iraq, and the privatization or “outsourcing” of American national security has intensified in the United States."
I have reverted back as a result. Provide your sources that this is not notable enough? Which historian says so? Which economist says so? Who says that national security privatization is not notable? Who says this particular meeting is not notable considering those who attended and the sources I have provided to indicate this? SOURCES? --Northmeister 15:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
His edits - at least those cited - do not speak for themselves. They are perfectly within the range of what reasonable people may think about these matters, coming from different perspectives and relying on different sources. In any case you must continue to assume good faith, you shouldn't write comments verging on hysteria, and you shouldn't drag past disagreements on unrelated topics into different article discussions. Rd232 talk 18:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
As to notability: don't be ridiculous - the onus is on you to show that X is notable enough for inclusion in article Y. (Thought experiment: can you cite historians to say that my conversation with you isn't notable enough for inclusion in the Wikipedia article?) Your links above absolutely do not show that this conference should be mentioned here. Lack of notability appears to be the consensus - I suggest you stop wasting everyone's time and start national security privatization, and we resume this discussion and when there is some worthwhile content developed there. That would actually be productive. Rd232 talk 18:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Let's take an on-going straw poll that indicates consensus then. I will abide by the polls results at any given time. I will also agree to limit the poll to those who have edited this page or been engaged in this discussion. Below is that poll; when consensus emerges - I will abide even by plurality. I have defended the honor of wikipedia and HK enough here against what 172 is engaged in both here and around wikipedia. I see pragmatically I can write or do nothing more without support from honest editors who stand back and see what was done to HK here from the beginning - contrary to the American spirit of civility, fairness, and Justice - let alone proper due process. --Northmeister 19:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Rd232, thanks for your thoughtful responses. You spared me the misfortune of having to respond to those attacks myself. 172 | Talk 05:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The evidence is provided for my assertions; and hence are not attacks. --Northmeister 06:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
A logical fallacy. Statement: "Northmeister is a silly old woman." Evidence: Northmeister talks like a human being (rather than a computer). Conclusion: nonsense. It is perfectly possible to make personal attacks based on evidence, and indeed the most effect attacks are usually based on (half)truths. Rd232 talk 06:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
You mean truth (see above evidence); which has a point of setting people free someone once said long ago. --Northmeister 06:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POLL ON KEEPING HK's EDIT

Comment This straw poll is to get a rough estimate on editors choice per the inclusion of HK's edit on 'national security' being included as amended by myself and Slimvirgin with citations. At the conclusion of five days from the first vote, I will take further action based on consensus. Lack of participation by editors is a Keep vote for all official purposes. Right now consensus is Keep. --Northmeister 00:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not up to the creator to determine the validity of polls, and the terms you have set don't fit Wikipedia:Straw polls. In any case, this is a waste of time, which is probably why no-one else has contributed. You can quite easily see in the discussion above that it's about a 4:2 "don't keep" (Rd232, 172, SlimVirgin, Golbez against keeping; you and HK for). If you want to contribute to Wikipedia you must be able to concede an argument; that you pursue the matter further at this time is especially frustrating because, as I keep saying, there is an excellent way to ensure the topic is dealt with properly: develop national security privatization. Rd232 talk 06:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I was trying to get a rough estimate of opinion after the arguments were made in full. That has not worked I see. I agree and that is why I restored Slimvirgins edit against a vandal previously (see history) and not my own version with the inclusion of 'national security'. I was providing a fair attempt at a proper statement of consensus by the editors you mention so that I and others could be clear about where people stand and I could move on knowing I did my best to stand in the arena and defend my position regardless of victory. That said, I concur with you above. I am ready to move on regarding this. I stand behind my points and agree that a seperate article is best. I recommend that to HK whenever he is free again. I was here afterall to defend another editor from abuse by 172. Good luck and thanks. --Northmeister 06:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC) -See statement below as amendment to above statements in lieu of second vote here to keep, which still provides a consensus for keep. I ask all editors involved in this dispute to participate. Again non-participation is a keep vote by all standards. --Northmeister 23:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. See all my reasons above. --Northmeister 19:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep, with the proviso that the article should also feature at least part of the quote from the Rohatyn-Stanger article in the Financial Times, where they demonstrate that "Halliburton's total contracts in Iraq to date are estimated at $11bn-$13bn (£6bn-£7bn), more than twice what the first Gulf war cost the US." This establishes the notability and non-hypothetical nature of national security privatization. --HK 14:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interruption of Straw Poll

This talk page is not the venue for taking a poll on that question. Restoring the disputed paragraph requires a new arbcom ruling overturning a series of abcom rulings since 2004. The arbcom has made it clear that work that originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement is to be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than articles directly related to LaRouche. 1 Northmeister is free to go to the arbcom and ask for an appeal of these past rulings. 172 | Talk 05:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This repeated rant would be relevant if the material had in fact originated with the LaRouche, but it clearly did not. It was sourced to the Princeton Project on National Security at Princeton University[35], as participants in this discussion may confirm for themselves by looking at the original edit, dated March 24. 172's argument is deceptive, and he should cut it out. If a news event is covered in a LaRouche publication, that does not mean LaRouche arranged for the event to happen. --HK 14:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

That is your constant statement and interpretation of HK's edit. You are wrong as usual. Straw Polls are common practice to ferret out opinion in disputes. I have no need to goto Arbcom here except to protest your actions of interrupting this legitimate poll of consensus claimed. The above was outright rude. Just vote Keep or not and when consensus emerges in favor or against, the community will know what to do. --Northmeister 05:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I recommend that everyone continue ignoring the straw poll, as it is irrelevant without an appeal of the three LaRouche-related arbcom rulings. At times, silence speaks volumes on Wikipedia. 172 | Talk 06:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

As usual you are in the wrong. --Northmeister 06:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll vote participation

I strongly recommend that all editors participate in the straw poll. HK has participated as well as I. The present formulation is 3 to keep and 4 to not keep by the above arguments and that us not consensus in this matter. I amend my statements above after reconsideration, and in lieu of counting SamSpade's original idea on keeping. I have made valid arguments for keeping with citations to credible sources on why it should be kept. I have only received complaints about notability (which the sources answer) and that it is 'LaRouche' related even though LaRouche websites published March 31st and HK added well before that and much has been added as sources since then. Those who object continue to do so without valid reasons or sources. I stand firm in my decision to abide by the Straw Poll above. Once five days are complete, I will make my determination on its results. Right now it is to keep and I will do that in less than five days now. The bullying tactics and Inquisition like statements need to stop and reasonable discussion commence. I have provided sources to back up HK and myself and originally Slimvirgin and also SamSpade, now I wish to have sources to refute my sources before valid reversions can be made. That is a reasonable request. Let's have them. --Northmeister 16:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

How does a vote with 4 opposed to 3 in favor result in a "keep"? There appears, so far, to be no consensus in favor of keeping it. You also seem to be saying that you'll abide by the straw poll, but only if you think the votes are worthwhile and only if proper sources are provided. This is a very odd poll. -Will Beback 20:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
And who is the third Keep anyway? As far as I can see it's only Northmeister and HK. Rd232 talk 20:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Will, I will abide by the poll regardless of sources, since I respect Wikipedia procedure. I only ask others participate to put all on the drawing board. If the poll concludes in favor of not keeping, I will abide by the consensus (however small or plurality based) of the community here. That is my position. Right now, two have participated and others only complain. 172 won't participate so I consider that a Keep vote, because of his silence. I want a recorded vote for the record here. I am not being unreasonable to gauge editors opinion in a rough straw poll. - Rd232, the third vote is Sam Spade who favored keeping earlier based on your formula of counting the arguments of those involved. Right now there are two votes officially for keep, that is consensus for keep. Just vote delete and give a brief reason why. When consensus emerges to delete I will uphold this. If it does not after the five day period from the start of the straw poll, I am not obligated and will uphold the above about sources. I feel I have done my part in good faith and all I see here is bad faith from those opposed to HK from the beginning he ever added the edit. There has been numerous objections ranging from it's LaRouche propaganda, to its not notable enough, to it doesn't fit the proper definition of privatization...I have shown it does fit the definition by sources, that it is notable especially since the Iraq War and 9-11-01, and that it is not only LaRouche related, as it was added prior to the published article 172 refers to and has been cleaned up by myself and slimvirgin to fit here. Lastly, I concur if a delete consensus emerges, that your advice is worthy about creating a national security privatization article and I recommend this to HK in light of the vote to delete. Again, it is perfectly legitimate to request a vote on this to gauge editor opinion in a dispute. I am asking good faith from all of you, to participate and then let the consensus decide. I will accept the result regardless. Thanks. --Northmeister 23:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
172 won't participate so I consider that a Keep vote, because of his silence. No you will not. I will not hesitate to report disruption. The poll is being ignored because it is irrelevant. A poll here cannot overturn the arbcom. I promise that the arbcom rulings will not be ignored so long as this article is on my watchlist. 172 | Talk 23:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
It is not disruption to hold a straw poll. It is part of civil society and behavior as I stated above, I will honor the communities decision. Your repeated threats are however disruption to make a point about Arbcom; a point moot since it has already been proven that the edit was added prior to LaRouche ever publishing anything on it; plus outside sources back it up. You refuse to give sources, so it can be reasonable to assume that you have none for your assertions made earlier that continue to change and are now on Arbcom because you googled and found LaRouche has reported on this as has the sources I provided - so what - doesn't make it his idea anymore than opposing Alito was his idea or that opposing the Iraq war is his idea. Do not disrupt this community with threats or personal attacks (calling HK a cultist is personal attack as is attacking his creed) any further; judge a man by his actions and character not his political affiliation or creed. --Northmeister 00:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Northmeister, regarding the date of the LaRouche article, you are confusing actual date with cover date. There is no reason to think that the March 31 issue is published on that date. Go to your local newstand and marvel your friends with you ability to predict the cover stories of magazines a month ahead! -Will Beback 01:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
In fact, the last edit date for this page, [36], was March 26, so obviously it was posted days before its cover date. -Will Beback 01:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. And, for the sake of argument, even if HK's edits predated the publication, the connection would still be clear given the remarkable similarities in the text. I believe that HK is on the record stating that he has known LaRouche personally for many years. It's likely that HK has insight into the work of LaRouche and his associates before the work is actually published. 172 | Talk 02:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Will, you may be right here; not sure. I don't go to that website too much, never did prior to Wikipedia; so I am unfamiliar with its operations. That said, if the two of you just vote above, as delete, then there is a tie. With Rd232 voting delete, then there is a plurality and we all can move on having stated our positions. You all know mine on each issue fairly well. I will give to the notion that maybe HK's edit might have been brought from that publication; but not being a psychic I can't know. Only HK, knows where he obtained his original information. Even if he obtained it from LaRouche websites or LaRouche himself if that be the case; it is still sad (at least) and very wrong (at most) that people are being judged simply based on affiliation and creed here contrary to the spirit of openness and freedom that we (at least I and I think Will who lives in Britain I think) enjoy and prize. My idea of 'strict scrutiny' (see my talk page) is the best approach to resolve these issues and not singling out a whole group for the activities of individual users or resorting to a sort of Inquisition against people based on their beliefs or associations. I would think we all would oppose that. In the end, I will let HK speak for himself on where he obtained his information. I will also abide by the straw poll. Vote and let your voice be heard and let us move on. --Northmeister 03:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirections

Is it possible for some1 to redirect 'privitisation'/'privitization' to this page, I was half way through writing a new article when I noticed my spelling error MrDark 18:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. Incidentally, if you haven't found out already, you could have done this yourself by typing "#REDIRECT [[Privatization]]" at the article pages for both of those misspellings. --zenohockey 02:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remove section

I am removing the following section:

==Outcomes==
Academic studies show that in competitive industries with well-informed consumers, privatization consistently improves efficiency. Such efficiency gains mean a one-off increase in GDP, but through improved incentives to innovate and reduce costs also tend to raise the rate of economic growth. The type of industries to which this generally applies include manufacturing and retailing. Although typically there are social costs associated with these efficiency gains, many economists argue that these can be dealt with by appropriate government support through redistribution and perhaps retraining.
In sectors that are natural monopolies or public services, the results of privatization are much more mixed. In general, if the performance of the existing public sector operation is sufficiently bad, privatization will tend to improve matters. However, much of this may be due to the imposition of related reforms such as improved accounting systems, regulatory systems, and increased financing, rather than privatization itself. Indeed, some studies show that the greatest gains from privatization are achieved in the pre-privatization period as reforms are made to prepare for the transfer to private hands. In liberal economic theory, a private monopoly behaves much the same as a public one.

The section does not cite any sources at all and efficiency in the context is not defined (ie. if wages are reduced so less money is spent on labour costs, does that count as increased efficiency?) and contains many POV statements and assumptions (ie. ignores olgiopolys in large scale industries, etc.). For that reason, I am removing it and will revert any attempt to put it back in this form (to be put back, it would need a total rewrite). 72.139.119.165 20:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What about Munincipalization and Nationalization?

Municipalization and Nationalization are barely covered while I discovered that privatization has an extensive article and discussion database. Privatization also has arguments for and against while the others are lacking support or criticism. It just seems like POV that everyones rushing to criticize/support privatization and leave its counterparts deserving of equal treatment in the dust.--Exander 08:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed paragraph in outcomes section

Also, it could be argued that the efficiency gains have nothing to do directly with private management. A private company is more likely to exploit workers than a public company (ie. by decreasing safety standards, wages, etc.) Therefore, the "efficiency gains" are caused simply by increased exploitation. Also, even if a private company is more efficient than a private one, that does not mean the whole efficiency of a communist (direct workers control) or socialist society will produce worse results. For example, Libya and Venezuela have nationalized their petrochemical industries and get the profits of the oil industry (Libya is among the richest countries in Africa) while Nigeria and countries which have private oil drilling have to profits go to massize international corporations and capitalists instead of to their workers and proletriat. Also, Cuba has among the highest standards of living in the Caribbean dispite the fact that there is a massive US embargo. Cuba has nationalized its industries and placed them under workers control (through state ownership, not yet directly), so Cubans themselves benefit from the sugar exports, etc. instead of foreign or interal capitalists. Not every nationalization produes good results (if they are elite controled, etc.) but they are often a step in direct workers control (not through the state, but directly). Generally, small companies can be kept privatly owned, but large ones are nationalized by socialist countries. This makes sense, because small companies are already largely under workers control, but large agricultural, industial, and service monopolies and olgiopolies (competion between companies is decreasing, they are being consolidated into immense industrial corporations) are not. Also, prizitization, far from producing an economic miracle in the former Soviet Union (note that self proclaimed socialist states are often far from socialism, but some have something closer to socialism than others (the Soviet Union was quiet far from socialism, especially under Stalin)), produced large scale inflation and unemployment. Therefoe, critics argue that, even if a privite company is more efficient, that privatization and capitalism usually produce worse Utilitarian results. 72.139.119.165 13:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It very much sounds like a Socialist argument. Without going into a point-by-point critique, I'll just suggest that it is more than a little POV, and that if someone wants to make claims that privitization does not work, there ought to be citations and evidence to back a claim up(though I would also suggest that many of the points were false or at least misleading). (The sigh is in there because I know how difficult/futile it can be to argue with Socialists...)

--Sconnie 18:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Most of this article needs to be scrapped completely

The bulk of this article is devoted to arguments for and against privatization. Most of them are completely unsourced and some of them are based on past instances of privatization that ought to be described elsewhere in the article but aren't. Even if the article needs should include arguments for or against at all (I would scrap them completely if it were up to me because "privatization" is such a general topic) they take up far too much space relative to the rest of the article. Most of them should simply be eliminated. Elliotreed 04:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/r/i/Talk%7EPrivatization_f93b.html"