Nicholas has made the points that I was going to make summarized thusly: If two parties perform the same function and they have
equal overhead to support that function and all of the un-necessary bells and whistles are removed, then there is no differential in
overall cost and thus no savings.

The choices that relate to any savings could be: reduced labor costs, reduced insurances,  reduced performance, or reduced contract
specifications. Offsetting savings would be the cost of revising contract specifications.

In the big picture, privatization is a mirror game having the appearance of savings but producing no savings at all.

There is no such thing as a "free lunch".

Just how far can you "cost reduce" something without losing the essence of that "something?

Regards,

Jim Moss, Conservator
in Private Practice

PS: BTW, as a new member of this list I am enjoying the on-going philosophical discussion just as much as a discussion about "nuts"
and "bolts"!  I believe that both are equally important.

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).