o papel do estado
quinta-feira, setembro 08, 2005
ainda a propósito do Katrina vale a pena ler, com tempo, esta meditação acerca do papel, função e definição do Estado, e do que é, ou não, privatizável, chama-se - sugestivamente ... New Orleans catastrophe down to privatisatio, e não, o autor não me parece um perigoso esquerdalha...
ainda sobre o Katrina...
Google Maps has added post-Katrina satellite images of New Orleans which demonstrate pretty effectively why the Big Easy will be out of action for some time.
As well as the standard "map", "satellite" and "hybrid" views, you can now select "Katrina" to jump to a post-hurricane image. This is how New Orleans used to look:
And here's the same view after Katrina:
Zooming in, we can see the devastation close-up. This is a snap of Galvez Street Wharf (to the left) and the residential area opposite:
But if you add a natural disaster:
Publicado por Manuel 12:16:00
Poderiam reflectir apenas nisto:
" The point of privatisation is the beloved free enterprise, something I am a wholehearted supporter and practitioner of, but is not the right tool for this job. For the same reason that communism will never work on anything but a small scale outpost, here and there, complete capitalism won't work either. The reason for this is human nature.
We people don't like to plan very far out, and there are enough parables from the time of Aesop on to drive the point home. We can see things coming with ease, but stand there like a deer in the headlights as they mow us down. Ask any smoker if he or she knows that it will probably kill him, and how many won't look you in the eye and say they know? How many people plan properly for retirement? How many public companies look to the current quarter's numbers to placate shareholders at the cost of long term viability? You can save money by outsourcing you phone support, a cost center, to a low quality supplier, but will people buy your product next time if they have a bad experience?
That in a nutshell is why we need governments who will occasionally waste money in our name. They play the odds that no rational person on their own would, and we all benefit as a group. If you throw that to the whims of the free market, for the same reason that they won't plan out more than a year, they won't do what it takes to protect you.
When the government privatises the disaster planning, abatement and relief efforts, it puts your life in the hands of the lowest bidder. If the goal of privatisation is to save money, that is an easily achievable goal. Imagine that there are three companies bidding to plan and build a levee for the government. One has a low cost bid that should be adequate, one has a much more expensive and sounder plan, the last has a super-ultra levee that costs more than twice the lowest bid, and will take longer to build.
The low bid obviously wins because cost is the name of the game. If your house is sitting in the shadow of that levee, which one would you want built? Would you agree that the community sitting downstream would be well advised to pay an extra $100 a year in taxes over the next 20 years for the super-ultra levee?"
Torna-se claro, nesta perspectiva que é um erro proivatizar hospitais.
Seria preferível investir em bons gestores- e pagar-lhes bem.
Let the corporations handle your old-age pension. Let the corporations decide how much protection we and our environment need from their toxics. Let the corporations decide what we're paid. Let the corporations decide what doctor we can see, when, and for what purpose. This is the exact opposite of the vision for which the Founders of this nation fought and died. --Thom Hartman
Bom dia!
Não a cultivo muito, mas sei reconhecê-la e admirá-la quando a vejo.
Quem contrata os privados é o estado logo a decisão foi feita por alguém responsável do estado. Se fez asneira num simples contrato e na verificação se o contrato estava a ser cumprido como é que a solução é entregar toda responsabilidade a essa pessoa ou entidade para agora e passar a controlar 1000 ou mais trabalhadores?
Mas há mais:
Se o estado engorda há muito mais possibilidades de incompetentes chegarem aos lugares de topo.
Se o estado engorda há muito mais dificulade em escortiná-lo.
Se o estado engorda e funciona mal não é possível(ou é muito mais dificil) despedir quem falhou. Se se contratualiza com uma empresa é muito mais fácil terminar o contrato. Nem há a tendência das organizações protegerem os seus.
Era bem melhor que a criatura que escreveu tal coisa se apercebesse que foi o falhanço do estado por ter engordado e ter começado a dar muito mais atenção a coisas que não são prioritárias que o fez falhar. Todo o tipo de ajudas políticas , subsídios para tudo e mais alguma coisa.
A Ponte de Entre os Rios não falhou porque há Estado a menos, falhou porque há ESTADO A MAIS como tal as funções essenciais do estado que são mais estratégicas ou intemporais perdem sempre para os interesses localizados e temporais. Vide as dificuldades do Exército Português para se reequipar, ou 0 treinos sérios anti sísmicos em Lisboa, ou a manutenção das simples pontes ou o equipamento miserável de muita da nossa polícia e os ordenados que ganham etc.
lucklucky
ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive
\200509\NAT20050907a.html
O estado a funcionar...
O estado a funcionar....
Largess in Louisiana
Money Flowed to Questionable Projects
State Leads in Army Corps Spending, but Millions Had Nothing to Do With Floods
By Michael Grunwald
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 8, 2005; Page A01
Before Hurricane Katrina breached a levee on the New Orleans Industrial Canal, the Army Corps of Engineers had already launched a $748 million construction project at that very location. But the project had nothing to do with flood control. The Corps was building a huge new lock for the canal, an effort to accommodate steadily increasing barge traffic.
(...)
Um texto elucidativo quando a segurança deixa o lugar aos interesses locais.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/
2005/09/07/AR2005090702462.html