Talk:Public–private partnership/Archives/2013

Privatisation of water
The data in this section seems outdated and could use an update. I mean mentioning a projection that is now in the past makes no sense. Plus if we're going to talk about Paris saving money by making their water services public, then we should probably also mention the suburbs of Paris that saved twice as much by negotiating with the same company that Paris got rid of.

"The Paris council’s ruling majority and Le Strat, in particular, have been criticised by their political opponents for not giving the private sector the opportunity to table offers on price cuts. They point to the SEDIF’s competitive auction in the Parisian suburbs where it was able to secure a tariff reduction, in percentage terms, from Veolia, of more than twice what Eau de Paris was able to offer."

http://www.globalwaterintel.com/archive/12/5/general/paris-defends-re-municipalisation-record.html

It seems to me that the issue is a lot more complex than how it is being represented in this article. 24.14.88.182 (talk) 02:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Theoretical impossibility
I added this and have re-added it after deletion. I think it is a valid contribution. SmokeyTheCat 11:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Does anyone dispute that public money should be spent for the public good? Does anyone dispute that private companies are seeking profits? Does anyone dispute that these two aims are fundamentally incompatible? I am not expressing an opinion merely pointing out a contradiction.SmokeyTheCat 12:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Public money should be spent for the public good and yes, it is true that private companies are "seeking profits" (that makes them "private"). The deal with P3s is that the public entity is using private business practices (e.g., willingness to take bigger risks) and experience to deliver projects in a quicker way. P3s are all about getting the services delivered in the most efficient, cost effective manner. --Izzybuff 19:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzybuff (talk • contribs)

"Does anyone dispute that public money should be spent for the public good? Does anyone dispute that private companies are seeking profits? Does anyone dispute that these two aims are fundamentally incompatible?"

It seems you're making an assumption that private companies can't provide public good because they want to have profits, then are using that as support that private companies shouldn't be allowed to provide public goods.

I think what you're trying to argue though is basically that we could save money by "cutting out the middleman" and having government perform the services themselves. Well that's not always the case, otherwise teacher's wouldn't buy chalk, they'd make it. Most importantly though, what you're putting forward isn't indisputable it is in fact, just an opinion (and one that can be countered by innumerous examples). 24.14.88.182 (talk) 03:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)