From: Vadim Antonov <avg@quake.net>

...

Maybe. More likely it's a tool to give Higher Education institutions a QOS independant from the commercial world (also cheaper).

Cheaper? Have you _ever_ seen anything done by the government that is cheaper after you count all hidden costs?

Actually, yes, there are quite a few examples.... Delivery of all social services has clearly been shown to be cheaper when done by government, when costs of fund collection, advertisement, and administration are included. Private charity is always more expensive, even when partly done with volunteer labor. The best numbers I have at hand are 3% government (US Food Stamps) versus 17% private (United Way) for administrative costs to delivered services. And when advertising and fund collection are added, many non-profit "charities" spend upwards of 50% on overhead! Another outstanding example is Public Radio and Television. That has been eroding as the government share of payments has been decreased, and overhead has increased due to the need for attracting advertising "sponsors". Once upon a time, there was virtually no non-production overhead. Now, with increased commercialization, there is a need to hire public relations and fundraising and grant writing personnel. Meanwhile, the hourly content has been diminished to insert the advertising. A classic documented case of the inefficiency of privatization.... Single payer medical services has also been shown to be cheaper than "insurance" systems, especially when advertisement and administration costs are counted. True, they have a tendency to reduce "choice", but so do the private commercial US HMOs, whether profit or non-profit. Centralized government recyling also comes to mind. Private commercial firms have more administrative overhead costs than goverment programs, even when governments are handling the fee collection (taxes). Private firms simply pay their administrators more, have a higher administrator to worker ratio, and have "profits" to distribute to shareholders. And far more of the waste stream ends up in land-fills, simply because it's still cheaper (in many parts of this country) than recycling. So, when the _goal_ is recycling, the government programs are far more cost effective for reaching that goal. More importantly to the case at hand, government use built the recycling waste stream to a point where commercial efforts could be mounted, and built a chain of suppliers and consumers. This is similar to the Internet experience. Goverment use built the net to a point where commercial activity could occur. We already had commercial telecommunications companies; they gave us X.25 ... and now, ATM.

Aw, how cute. Sounds like first-grader's taking about Granddad Lenin. Surely smart grown-up people up will show us the Only And True Way, they sure know better how to spend our money.

I'm afraid your emotional bias is showing. You are responsible for the government you have, and it spends its money exactly as you permit it. If not, you have the right to attempt to change it. Depends on how self-importantly you think of your own life.... WSimpson@UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32 BSimpson@MorningStar.com Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2