Siting of panels for solar water heating

On 2006-12-15 21:45:44 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , meow2222@care2.com writes
Heh. Who will do that? Private entrepreneurs with a good deal more business sense have no access into the market or the LA. In a freer market everyone that thought they could solve the problem could try to do so, and the succeeders would and take over from the failers.
But you dont want that. I do.
I've nothing against a little 'evolution in action', but I'd hate to create short termist, hire and fire, 'quarterly profits' culture that was focussed on minimal cost, minimal provision, and minimum environmental standards.

So would I. It should be based on these principles:
- short, medium and long term recognising that if the short term isn't done properly, there will be no long term
- staffing levels to match the level of business. This inevitably means hiring people when business is good and letting them go when it's not. This is far better than carrying excess cost and putting the business under. Again this is sonething that the public sector is not good at doing because the customers are obliged to keep funding the inefficiency.
- quarterly profits are important as are half year and annual ones. The occasional shortfall is allowable, but continued failure should result in change of management.
- cost should always be minimised while keeping the level of service that the customer is willing to buy. This does not mean minimal provision or minimal environmental standards. Customers should be able to buy the service appropriate to them and for the best price.

On 2006-12-15 21:46:33 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-12-15 01:59:17 +0000, John Beardmore said:
I thought you were the one that wanted to add wagons, road miles and multiple service providers ?
Nope. That was your supposition in terms of adding road miles.
Well - it seems like a reasonable supposition, and you seem unable to refute it.

There is no point in measuring it either way. What actually counts is the total picture, not just one small part.

John Beardmore wrote:

In message , meow2222@care2.com writes John Beardmore wrote: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-12-10 22:50:34 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> said: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-12-04 02:54:50 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> said:
this is true of all the views on this thread, I'm not sure it really tells us much.
Well - for a start, maybe it suggests that stating your own view as though it is absolute self evident truth, spoken with absolute self evident authority is a problem ?

Thats odd, cos I dont recall ever claiming any such a thing. Its just one more objection that doesnt stand up.
However I'll venture as far to say one or 2 points this time probably are self evident, which is rarely the case.

John, the mechanics of different markets have been well studied, neither Andy nor anyone else need rehash what has been well established over a good many years by various scholars on the topic.
There may be good scholars and bad scholars, but if Andy or anybody else wants to gain popular support for his scheme, and in a democracy that's what he needs, first he'll have to tell us what he proposes, and in some detail, then he'll have to tell us why it's better, then we can make up our own minds.

he has done. If you want more info, there are already writings on capitalism that can be consulted. There is no need or reason to rehash such things.

Your claim that the known merits of the capitalist markerplace are a personal ideology doesnt even begin to be true.
From what I've seen economics is not an exact science, and from what I've seen there are certain things it does not address at all, like protection of global commons ! These are well rehearsed arguments at MBA level. It seems a bit spurious to only trot out one side of the argument.

So our mostly capitalist system does not have fishing quotas? Our mostly capitalist system does not legislate against flytipping? Fact is our system does tackle the tragedy of the commons.
Anyway, protection of global commons is not a problem with refuse collection today. We have legislation in place to prevent what are now illegal disposal methods.
This is another objection that doesnt stand up.

While there are things that
a) we value,
or
b) we depend on,
that are not represented by simple cash values, economics will never give a complete picture of any but the most artificial of situations that can be fully described by simple market mechanics.

This is basic capitalist principles that anyone can read up.

It is specifically the failure to deal with or value environmental issues that makes the 'proposal' from Andy so questionable for so many of us.

That isnt really so. If consumers want a green service, and most do, thats what theyll buy.
2ndly arguments such as that shipping waste plastic to china is a must do are at best open to debate. You seem unwilling to recognise that there are some significant issues with the POV driving todays garbage system in UK.

Given that he seems unable to engage with anything other than wild allegations about local authorities and 'leaving it to the market',

'Leave it to the market' is the answer. And he's gone into rather more explantion that you give him credit for there.

I suggest that his position is personal ideology -

Your claim that Andy's wish to let capitalism have a market is a personal ideology is 100% bogus, and on this point, yes I do think this is obvious, self evident. It has the reality-connectedness of a carrot called gordon with 4 wings, 6 eyes and 100 noses.

at least in as far as it doesn't seem to be a particularly balanced view,

of course, it isnt meant to be. Its no more balanced than your one sided views, or mine.

it doesn't seem to take the views of many stakeholders into account, and it's not shared by all, (I suspect most), of the population.

No view is shared by all the population. As for most, I would be curious to see your evidence. If you have any :)

The mechanics of markets my be "well established", but that doesn't mean that introducing a market where there wasn't one [of the same type] before, will bring about a situation that will be universally seen as better.

John this is a nuts objection. In no political or market system on earth is there ever a 100% consensus that its better than the last system.

And if you want to bring about a situation that won't be seen as better universally, in a democracy, you need to start convincing the rest of us.

Why would I 'need' to do that do you think? It is an option, a choice, one of many things I may or may not do with my life, and nothing more.

So start, or go whistle !

Charm school :)
John, you've argued page after page after page here, and still have not come up with ANY valid objection to opening the market up to capitalism. Not even one.
NT

Andy Hall wrote:

For example, my local highways department, in order to carry out a survey for traffic planning and distribution hired an outside firm to do most of the work while staff members sat in the office. This was unknown to most councillors until they were made aware of it. It's but one example of paying twice because those employed to do the work are lazy, incompetent or both. In terms of the published figures �X appeared as opposed to the �X/2 that it should have cost.

The most basic of capitalist principles tells us why LAs are not greatly motivated to do as well as they can, while private companies are. No system guarantees us the best across the board all the time, but putting serious incentives of both carrot and stick type, as capitalism does, is clearly going to motivate and generally produce significant improvement over unmotivated (monopolistic) systems.
NT

John Beardmore wrote:

In message , meow2222@care2.com writes John Beardmore wrote: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-12-04 16:39:38 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> said:
Well - he certainly isn't doing what you want, but may well be doing what he's employed to do.
By whom? Who is paying?
We all pay, but that doesn't mean you proposal would do the job better, nor necessarily even cheaper.
in a state owned marketplace it doesnt even mean the job needs doing.
Well - I suspect most of us think that it does.

I think you'll find lots of people recognise that state action is at times doing things that they dont think need doing.
A well known example would be the prosecution of a market trader selling in pounds and ounces. If that LA were in the free market they'd be history after that one. But today's LAs can continue to act like tinpot dictators without regard for democracy, and at times they do.

Let alone that the people who are paying wish to pay for it.
Well - it's true that most people will avoid tax where they can, but most people still want their rubbish taken away.

thats not the issue, the issue is over things that the people dont think need doing.
NT

Andy Hall wrote:

Therein lies the problem. We all pay, yet we are not told what we are paying for but are simply expected to continue to write ever increasing cheques (used metaphorically).

If a private company operated like this they would lose a lot of business. They would be replaced by another business that saw the opportunity to offer what people voted for.
Telling the customer what the purchased service is is an expected basic thing in capitalism. Yes there are some companies that dont, so you can have that if you wish. But needless to say businesses that tell you whats being offered hold the great majority of the marketplace in their area.
This unfortunately is how far LAs are removed from good business practice.
NT

Andy Hall wrote:

Therein lies the problem. We all pay, yet we are not told what we are paying for but are simply expected to continue to write ever increasing cheques (used metaphorically).

If a private company operated like this they would lose a lot of business. They would be replaced by another business that saw the opportunity to offer what people voted for.
Telling the customer what the purchased service is is an expected basic thing in capitalism. Yes there are some companies that dont, so you can have that if you wish. But needless to say businesses that tell you whats being offered hold the great majority of the marketplace in their area.
This unfortunately is how far state monopolies such as LAs are removed from good business practice.
NT

John Beardmore wrote:

In message , meow2222@care2.com writes John Beardmore wrote: In message , meow2222@care2.com writes
Might be a better deal to sort the LA out.
Heh. Who will do that? Private entrepreneurs with a good deal more business sense have no access into the market or the LA. In a freer market everyone that thought they could solve the problem could try to do so, and the succeeders would and take over from the failers.
But you dont want that. I do.
I've nothing against a little 'evolution in action', but I'd hate to create short termist, hire and fire, 'quarterly profits' culture that was focussed on minimal cost, minimal provision, and minimum environmental standards.

Andy answered this pretty good. But lets look from another angle.
If we look at the reality of free markets, there is a spread of standards. There is everything from cheap and basic (eg MG metro) to sumptuous luxury (eg Rolls Royce, Ferrari). There are also a smaller number of companies serving smaller or niche areas (eg Citroen 2CV, skoda, Landrover, smartcar etc)
So what people purchase is more or less what they want. Its not perfect because there arent infinite choices, but there are core reasons covered in any book on free markets why its better than 100% state control. You only need look at Russia in the 80s to see what a state controlled command economy gets you, and thats what we have with LAs and garbage collection.
Point by point...

but I'd hate to create short termist

well, companies only stay in business if they address the medium and long term issues too. Short termists dont stick around.

hire and fire,

hiring and firing is done on the basis of what staff the business needs to fulfil its services, and on whether the staff are competent. Compare with LAs where incompetents are usually either allowed to stay in the post or moved to another post. So I wonder why you'd hate less incompetence and less cost waste.

'quarterly profits' culture

every business needs to streamline itself financially. LAs dont need to, its why theyre so efficient. Again I wonder why you'd actively want such inefficiency and excess costs.

was focussed on minimal cost,

why do you want a service at a price higher than it need be to fulfil all the requirements? Do you enjoy adding 0s onto your council tax cheques?

minimal provision,

private companies provide whatever level of provision the customer wants - and since there are several companies, each purchaser can have a lot closer to what they want than with the command economy.

and minimum environmental standards.

In the freeish marketplace, required environmental standards are laid down by law. That aspect of business is controlled by central givernment, not by businesses. So service providers cant fall below those and realistically expect to stay in business and out of the courts. Companies can choose to improve further on those standards, and many do.
NT

Andy Hall wrote:

On 2006-12-15 08:33:34 +0000, David Hansen SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> said:
We are currently in much the same position as we were with gas and electricity some years ago. Large users can select a provider. In the case of waste, unlike electricity and gas some years ago, small users can also select a provider if they want.
No they can't unless they are also permitted not to pay the LA.
In the case of electricity and gas there was some agitation for small users to be allowed to do the same thing. There is almost no agitation in the case of waste and few if any small users have taken up the option they already have.
That's because there isn't an option.
Do you really believe in the case of electricity or gas that users would pay for an alternative supplier in addition to their present one?

Its just a nonsense argument being brought up again, despite it being dealt with much earlier on in the thread.
NT

Tony Bryer wrote:

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 08:33:34 +0000 David Hansen wrote :
There is almost no agitation in the case of waste and few if any small users have taken up the option they already have.
A key reason is because it is a natural monopoly. You do not have to be in the business to see that the cost in terms of wages, vehicles etc of collecting from 1/3 of a street is going to be more than half that of collecting from 2/3. So if you have two companies that split the business this way, the one with 2/3 can undercut the other (for the same level of service) and will eventually put them out of business (at which point if not regulated they can clean up in the other sense). Alternatively they come to a gentleman's agreement to keep prices at a level where both make money, the one with the larger share of the business, lots of money.

This may be half true. If it turns out this way I expect what would happen is one company would take over on per street or per collection area basis. IOW the housing estate would be serviced by Budgetgarb & Co, the town centre by Freshpaintedgarb Co, the shopping mall by Suitedbootedgarb Co, and the rough area by Wtfdoyouwantgarb Co.
IOW even if this 'natural non-monopoly' situation occurs, local services will stll be much better matched to customer wishes than is the case today.
And sure enough this is what we see in some market areas.
NT

John Beardmore wrote:

In message , meow2222@care2.com writes John Beardmore wrote: In message , meow2222@care2.com writes sarah wrote: Andy Hall wrote: On 2006-12-03 17:47:04 +0000, usenet@colddrake.co.uk (sarah) said: Andy Hall wrote:
but not half as mythical as saying LAs must use the least energy of all options!
Straw man. All I've expressed is the concern that the proposed scheme would increase fuel used, congestion, number of vehicles and staff used to do the same job etc.

....exactly what you just called a straw man then.

At the moment, I think they are obliged to chase 'bast value', which I guess gives them a lot of scope for subjective consideration.

nominally yes, but realistically no. There isnt the competition there, the investment in new trials, incompetents stay in their jobs etc.

Or alternatively, the rubbish is processed the cheapest way, regardless of consequences.
its down to the customer and the law. Personally I'd be in favour of reducing customer costs,
This is fine as long as the people at the sharp end don't have their wages cut just because some suit fancies better first quarter figures.

I think the basics of capitalism are already well known. To get factual, wages in the private sector are mostly higher than in the public sector, despite services being delivered more competitively. Feel free to wonder why.

and can think of ways to do it while in the same measure increasing recycling.
Maybe. Go on then...

I was about to tell you my thoughts on that, but it would take us off the point. The whole point here is that in a freeish market everyone that thinks they can improve on existing services is free to try it, and see if it works. (And motivated to do so.) And if it does, others will follow. This just doesnt happen in the command economy of LAs.

The law determines the parameters garbage services work within, just as they do today.
Possibly, though I suspect the law would need to be changed to allow this unbundling of services.

probably, though I wouldnt assume it.

Hopefully there would be no loss of environmental stringency in the process.

why would one lower the legal requirements at the same time as privatisation?

Are you proposing a two- (or more) tier cost for refuse disposal, with one price for those of us who sort their own and another for those who prefer not to sully their hands with it? How much would implementing *that* cost?
nothing. You leave the market to it,
And that makes it free ? Oh good !!
That makes it more cost efficient.
Key word there is COST.

Yes, thats one of them. Lowered costs mean more people can afford silver medal type services.

The cost of deciding on price is a very small part of a large business operation's costs. Other differences will dwarf this one.
I had in mind the delivery of multiple services rather than the submission of prices.

OK. Lets take fro example garbage collectors being willing to go onto a persons property to collect bags if they have an orange sticker in the front window. The cost of that little exta labour is paid for by the silver service buyers. In fact in private enterprise it is common to have basic services at cost with the fancier options bringing in the profit. Thus all win, the low cost service is cheaper, those wishing and happy to pay for fancy services can have that too. All standard stuff in retail today.
The orange sticker is of course an example, there are various ways to do it irl.

and people will buy from whichever firm does closest to what they want. It would result in economies rather than costs.
Yes - but that makes the preferred outcome cheap, not the most sustainable one.
it makes it whichever the people of Britain vote for on a yearly basis, it is the ultimate democracy.
I'm not sure that democracy is much better for 'saving the planet' than capitalism, but I don't remember when we last had a referendum about waste services, never mind one per year !

Man, this is basics of free markets stuff. Each time a customer buys a service they are voting with their wallet. They will vote for the service they prefer by paying for it. Capitalism is the ultimate democracy. Capitalism enables the people to determine what they get by this method of voting with their money.

With private enterprise comparison and analysis are pssible. How well comparison is done varies of course.
Actually I don't see any evidence at all that private business is at all good at making environmental performance data public, either in sufficient detail, or in a timely way.
And if the data isn't generally available, saying "comparison and analysis are possible", while formally true is utterly missing the point. In the real world, this information is generally not available.

It is elementary to legally require publication of environmental data (or if the market is controlled via the LA, ie without a change in the law, to contractually require it).

When you've only got one system, there is no possibility of comparison of the options, and nothing can be learnt, because there are no comparison facts to learn anything from.
If it can be measured, it can be improved. 'Continuous Improvement' doesn't requite competition.

no, it just happens 4x faster in a free economy. This is 101 stuff.

The availability of comparison data
What availability would that be ??
Is that a promise ?

is it a sensible question to ak me to promise what I dont control? I think it relevant to garbage collection and would vote for full data being available.

why cant he have another option, such as not sorting and not recycling? Its not like the recycling option is beyond debate.
I guess the real answer is that most people are happy enough to recycle what they can easily, and while not ecstatic about LA waste services, don't really want to think about alternatives foisted upon them.

foisted? wouldnt they rather have choice than the current foisting? All those people that have changed from british gas and BT have all voted yes with their wallets to that one.

At the end of the day, LCA will indicate where materials aren't worth recycling, and should be able to give a clue as to the best way to dispose of them.
In a sense, it doesn't require a debate, such as doing the LCA in each locale. Maybe when you have the LCA data there might be something to debate.

you're welcome to your undying faith in LCAs. To pretend there is no debate is so unrealistic it seems almost disingenuous, though I daresay you really do believe so.

Well - you can lobby your democratically elected members using sound numerically supported arguments if you like.
I hope youre kidding, but I get the feeling you're not.
Well - you seem keen on democracy

yes. Do you see how a free market implements it, whereas LAs are command economy?

... ...but less able to come up with plausible figures.

what figures, concerning what? If you want examples of what happens when command markets go free, UK has several examples you can look at. If you want 101 principles of capitalism, again theres no need for me to rehash it all.
NT

John Beardmore wrote:

In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-12-03 17:47:04 +0000, usenet@colddrake.co.uk (sarah) said:
The whole premise was to have a range of services from a range of providers so that people can choose what they want and with local authorities taken out of the financial path between customer and supplier. If you want to continue as you are then that is accomodated.
But if you want to continue having your waste collected with an environmental impact / footprint that as small as it is now, you may not be, and indeed, there is no guarantee that your existing service provision would be offered.

a tired argument thats been routed over and over.

Well - this is indeed the big one ! Is there any centralised reporting and analysis of LCA data broken down by region ? That could certainly inform a more systematic approach.

what, you mean you dont have the detailed data either? In principle you could do LCAs for each option if you wished, but there is one problem, in that you dont appear to have fully grasped the variety of options open in the freeish marketplace, so would likely be LCAing only one not especially competitive option.
NT

In message , meow2222@care2.com writes

John Beardmore wrote: In message , meow2222@care2.com writes John Beardmore wrote: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-12-10 22:50:34 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> said: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-12-04 02:54:50 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> said:
this is true of all the views on this thread, I'm not sure it really tells us much.
Well - for a start, maybe it suggests that stating your own view as though it is absolute self evident truth, spoken with absolute self evident authority is a problem ?
Thats odd, cos I dont recall ever claiming any such a thing.

Not explicitly.

Its just one more objection that doesnt stand up.

Oh I don't know. When you say something a tad patronising like
"John, the mechanics of different markets have been well studied, neither Andy nor anyone else need rehash what has been well established over a good many years by various scholars on the topic"
it makes my teeth itch. Unpacking that we have,
"John, the mechanics of different markets have been well studied"
which is no doubt true, but that doesn't mean they've been well understood ! Then
"neither Andy nor anyone else need rehash what has been well established over a good many years by various scholars on the topic"
which doesn't seem too clever either. All of which seems to be an attempt to imply that this stuff is studied, accepted, well understood, and not worthy of further discussion or criticism - in short that we should accept it as an axiom.
Now - I'm not an economist, and I don't know that you are, but I have written simulations of retail markets to train Deloitte Touche accountants, and friends of mine from university went on to do modelling of futures markets, so I'm not totally green about it either.
It seems to me that this is all way more complex and less well understood than you would have us believe, and if you want me to accept your view as an axiom, you'll have to be a lot more convincing than this.
I don't think it's unfair to say that you wrote that as though we should accept it as self evident truth, spoken with absolute self, and you present it as if you know it to be unassailable and beyond question. I could be wrong of course, but I doubt you've found anything in economic theory that
a) maps particularly directly onto this problem,
or
b) has any particularly good model for accounting the use and / or destruction of global commons.
And if you imply this without a firm foundation in economic theory, it is disingenuous at best, and certainly not posted from a position of authoritative knowledge.

However I'll venture as far to say one or 2 points this time probably are self evident, which is rarely the case.

I'll venture to suggest that we wouldn't agree on which ones !

John, the mechanics of different markets have been well studied, neither Andy nor anyone else need rehash what has been well established over a good many years by various scholars on the topic.
There may be good scholars and bad scholars, but if Andy or anybody else wants to gain popular support for his scheme, and in a democracy that's what he needs, first he'll have to tell us what he proposes, and in some detail, then he'll have to tell us why it's better, then we can make up our own minds.
he has done.

Last thing I heard was his declining to make specific proposals !

If you want more info, there are already writings on capitalism that can be consulted.

Asserting such, while true, is too vague to be useful. If you've got a point, please make it specifically rather than alluding to some body of knowledge which you expect to be out there.

There is no need or reason to rehash such things.

There is every reason if you want me to act on the basis of your beliefs rather than mine !
There is writing on all sorts of other things too, like ethics and the environment. Start from the premiss that I'm about as keen to grub about in academic works on economics as you to spend ages reading about environmental ethics.

Your claim that the known merits of the capitalist markerplace are a personal ideology doesnt even begin to be true.
From what I've seen economics is not an exact science, and from what I've seen there are certain things it does not address at all, like protection of global commons ! These are well rehearsed arguments at MBA level. It seems a bit spurious to only trot out one side of the argument.
So our mostly capitalist system does not have fishing quotas? Our mostly capitalist system does not legislate against flytipping? Fact is our system does tackle the tragedy of the commons.

And yet we still have fish stocks in rapid decline in most parts of the world !
What sort of tackling would this be ?

Anyway, protection of global commons is not a problem with refuse collection today.

Another statement of your own view as though it is absolute self evident truth, spoken with absolute self evident authority. Have you got no idea at all that other people might not completely share your belief system ?
If you haven't noticed that there are problems every possible waste disposal method that affect global commons, you are simply a waste of space from the point of view of this debate !

We have legislation in place to prevent what are now illegal disposal methods.

Which doesn't mean that there is "not a problem with refuse collection today".

This is another objection that doesnt stand up.

ROFL !!

While there are things that
a) we value,
or
b) we depend on,
that are not represented by simple cash values, economics will never give a complete picture of any but the most artificial of situations that can be fully described by simple market mechanics.
This is basic capitalist principles that anyone can read up.

The hell it is. Essentially it's an area that has been outside the gamut of traditional capitalist thinking and description. If you believe otherwise, cite your sources.

It is specifically the failure to deal with or value environmental issues that makes the 'proposal' from Andy so questionable for so many of us.
That isnt really so. If consumers want a green service, and most do, thats what theyll buy.

Not if they want a cheaper service more, but the cheaper service may not be [as] sustainable, so although cheaper in the shot term, the cheaper solution may impose a greater cost on humanity as a whole, and on users of the service in the longer term.

2ndly arguments such as that shipping waste plastic to china is a must do are at best open to debate.

Better yet, they are open to LCA. Better to resolve and fix problems from a position of knowledge than prejudice.

You seem unwilling to recognise that there are some significant issues with the POV driving todays garbage system in UK.

Oh no. I recognise that there are huge problems, but I don't think they are best resolved by leaving it to the uninformed to make decisions, without factual support, when they have short term financial incentives to choose less sustainable solutions.

Given that he seems unable to engage with anything other than wild allegations about local authorities and 'leaving it to the market',
'Leave it to the market' is the answer.

ROFL !

And he's gone into rather more explantion that you give him credit for there.

Well - he's certainly aired his prejudices. I wouldn't dignify them with the term "explanation".

I suggest that his position is personal ideology -
Your claim that Andy's wish to let capitalism have a market is a personal ideology is 100% bogus, and on this point, yes I do think this is obvious, self evident. It has the reality-connectedness of a carrot called gordon with 4 wings, 6 eyes and 100 noses.

Well - if he thinks there is justification, let him prove it by some method other than repeated assertion !

at least in as far as it doesn't seem to be a particularly balanced view,
of course, it isnt meant to be. Its no more balanced than your one sided views, or mine.

Indeed, but if he can't justify his position, he won't get support for the change he wants to make - which is pretty much fine by me.

it doesn't seem to take the views of many stakeholders into account, and it's not shared by all, (I suspect most), of the population.
No view is shared by all the population.

Well - his views aren't shared by a bunch of people in this news group for a start, and I'm utterly certain we aren't the only ones, so that assertion is toast too !

As for most, I would be curious to see your evidence. If you have any :)

Well I guess it stems from the period when Derby was considering setting up and EFW plant. There was very considerable debate about the whole issue of waste disposal. I was involved, privately, talking to activists, participating in public meetings, etc, but not one person spoke in favour of setting up a number of competing services to cover the same geographical areas, or 'leaving it to the market' !

The mechanics of markets my be "well established", but that doesn't mean that introducing a market where there wasn't one [of the same type] before, will bring about a situation that will be universally seen as better.
John this is a nuts objection. In no political or market system on earth is there ever a 100% consensus that its better than the last system.

Fair point, but you have no evidence that it will be better at all.
Keep in mind my original comment:
"...if Andy or anybody else wants to gain popular support for his scheme, and in a democracy that's what he needs, first he'll have to tell us what he proposes, and in some detail, then he'll have to tell us why it's better, then we can make up our own minds".

And if you want to bring about a situation that won't be seen as better universally, in a democracy, you need to start convincing the rest of us.
Why would I 'need' to do that do you think? It is an option, a choice, one of many things I may or may not do with my life, and nothing more.

Well - you seem to be advocating a change, and if you want wide support, my experience would suggest you'll have your work cut out.
Of course if you don't want change, that's fine, but you seem to putting quite a bit of effort into arguing is support of Andys idea for someone who isn't supporting it.

So start, or go whistle !
Charm school :)

Quite so.

John, you've argued page after page after page here,

Well - it seems worth trying to tease out what you think and why.

and still have not come up with ANY valid objection to opening the market up to capitalism. Not even one.

Well - you don't have to accept my arguments any more than I have to accept yours. It doesn't particularly matter that we disagree.
Enjoy ! J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-12-15 21:42:58 +0000, John Beardmore said:
In message , Andy Hall writes
The point is that provision of the service that the customer wants is a pre-requisite to participation. The service I want is the one I've got WITHOUT any other thanks. Then I'm pleased for you. I am sure that you will have no objection to others having what they want to have as well. I'll support what I think is justified thanks. Sometimes there is more to life than giving everybody what they want just because they happen to want it.
I see. That doesn't seem like a particularly democratic viewpoint to me.

Well - did people vote for speed limits and taxes ?

You want a free market, but this seems to be more to do with your personal ideology than any particular lack of skill. It's not a personal ideology, rather a recognition of the natural order. That may be how you see it, but again, you may have to accept that your view isn't universally shared. It would appear to be in the free world - possibly different in Myanmar and N. Korea. There seem to be plenty of dissenting voices in this news group. I don't think any of us post from Korea, do you ? Who knows? I frequently post from all sorts of obscure places. Well - I think you'll find that most of us are based in the UK.
So am I. However, I do have the opportunity to broaden my horizons.

If you are unable to realise the basics of administrative overhead, then there is not really a basis for discussion. I am quite able to realise it. You apparently are unable to measure it. There is no need when it is self-evident. Not good enough I'm afraid.
You disappoint me. Didn't they teach you basic economics on this eco course of yours, or would that have been too inconvenient to the cause?

They touch on the limitations of seeing performance purely in terms of economic indicators.
Did they teach you anything about the environment when / if you studied economics ?

and sells it to the customer. The administration adds no A bold yet spurious assumption... It's an unnecessary cost. I am surprised that you think that that's spurious. I'm surprised you think it's unnecessary. In the way that it is currently implemented, it is certainly unnecessary - we are paying twice. I'm not sure I agree, but as you don't seem to realise what LA staff do do, or to know how much it costs, it's hard to take your protestations about it seriously. The council tax payers where I live are taking it very seriously and are pushing for detail of what each department actually does do and the costs involved, including the duplications that arise from of management consultants. Well - all of that can only be good !
Oh definitely. Then the questions will be asked as to how and when this will be reduced.

How, when and IF.

so the customer might as well deal direcly with the supplier and cut out the middle man. Clear enough? Clear, simple, simplistic, but not in my view correct. It's hard to come to any other conclusion unless you believe that Father Christmas funds local authorities. Well - even you seem to envisage LAs continuing to have a role, and a thing is not rendered unnecessary by somebody having to pay for it ! Either the LAs or a central licensing body - Well - either way, it has to be resourced. Of course, but not anything like the wasteful levels it is today. Maybe, but we only have your assertion for that, and you seem to have no more than limited local observation and prejudice to justify your position.
From what I hear, the waste is quite widespread. Council tax levels have gone up all over the country and the return has not increased to match it.

Is this not due to a decrease in central government funding for LAs as opposed to simple embezzlement ?

certainly not at current staffing levels. Well you seem to be keen to give who ever it is more work to do ! If this means more work per local civil servant then I'm very keen on the idea; or even better less work by them in total and substantially fewer heads. Well - we won't know what might be possible until you detail your proposal will we ?
I already have. The proposal is to remove local authorities from the food chain in waste collection and for it to be replaced by licensed free enterprise operators.

Still sadly lacking in detail.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , meow2222@care2.com writes

Andy Hall wrote:
For example, my local highways department, in order to carry out a survey for traffic planning and distribution hired an outside firm to do most of the work while staff members sat in the office. This was unknown to most councillors until they were made aware of it. It's but one example of paying twice because those employed to do the work are lazy, incompetent or both. In terms of the published figures �X appeared as opposed to the �X/2 that it should have cost.
The most basic of capitalist principles tells us why LAs are not greatly motivated to do as well as they can,

In terms of which indicators ?

while private companies are.

In terms of which indicators ?

No system guarantees us the best across the board all the time, but putting serious incentives of both carrot and stick type, as capitalism does, is clearly going to motivate and generally produce significant improvement over unmotivated (monopolistic) systems.

I'm not sure this need be the case. The army for example is something of a monopoly, but it still seems to manage to create incentives for people that join of both stick and carrot variety.
Being able to motivate people does not require external competition, merely commitment.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore