Buyers, when buying, love simple solutions. Sellers, when selling, are motivated oppositely because complex arrangements are so much more rewarding.
The concepts are indisputable. If you construct a tiny shed, the cost is small. If instead, you build a voluminous warehouse, costs rise dramatically. Which is OK, but only if that's what you need.
I had a vehicle rejected by AirCare for an exhaust difficulty. A national brand shop estimated $800 to repair so I drove to a small garage for a comparison. Five minutes and $20 later, I returned to AirCare for a pass. The minor weld fix still held three years later.
In everyday life, we make financial decisions regularly and, through focus on self-interest, they generally work out. But, when everyone involved in a project gains by escalating size and complexity, who manages the limits? Who says no, when no needs to be said?
Consider the budget for the 2010 Olympic security units. Originally $175 million, insiders knew this was wildly inaccurate but kept quiet for years. Even the 2009 estimate of $900 million was plastic with details hidden from public analysis. Will the amount escalate further? It already has and, with no effective controls in place and no willingness to deny any whim, it will grow more. There are no means of control. The kids are in the candy store without constraints.
In private business, the shareholders and financiers set limits and take concomitant risks. In the public sector, the issues of responsibility are less certain; risks, even more abstruse. Voters exercise theoretical control but infrequently and without precision.
As British Columbians learned in 2009, the party in power controls the flow of information and may feel no obligation to honest disclosure. That difficulty might be offset were there a vigorous opposition and an inquiring news media, both able to freely access information. These elements are not present in British Columbia so the BC Liberal Government suppresses accountability.
Transactions worth tens of billions, such as the private power commitments, are negotiated behind closed doors between current and former associates who can flip from buyer to seller on a whim. Detailed terms of the deals remain secret. Thousand year leases, agencies, crown corporations, P3s, publicly owned private companies and other vehicles of evasion are used to shield financial arrangements from public view.
Public tenders are used to buy paper clips but not hospitals, bridges and highways worth billions. Instead, Requests for Proposals are issued to friends and deals awarded without competition. Terms are secret.
How are citizens of British Columbia protected from massive financial fraud? Simple. We are not protected. Years ago, when I was learning financial systems, internal control and audit principles, one thing was clear. When opportunities for fraud are present without likelihood of timely discovery, it will occur. That will happen when small sums are at stake; it is even more likely when large sums are at stake.
So, who protects the public interest? MLAs are not allowed to speak except on behalf of approved party policies. News reporters are co-opted and rewarded for cooperation. Publications and broadcasters see lucrative government advertising as due compensation for friendly coverage.
And, of course, the bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy. Salaries escalate, benefits increase and the ultimate rewards - multiple dipping consulting contracts or employment as a key lobbyist - accrue to the most faithful.
Corruption expands to meet the needs of the corrupt.
Recommend this post
Divided ... - Why is part of the American electoral system so susceptible to right-wing populist appeals, often highlighting themes of racism and intergroup hostility?...
1 hour ago