What's happened to our money?

"Bob Myers" wrote in message
...

"Julie M." wrote in message
...
First, a for-profit concession operating in a public-service sites such
as national parks could easily mean higher cost to visitors. The very
nature of a business is to make money. Much of this money should be and
could have been directed to operating budget of national parks instead
of some private corporation's bank accounts.

First, why is "profit" necessarily a bad thing? Yes, the nature
of a business is to make money. Properly regulated and
inspected, etc. (in this case, under the supervision of the Park
Service, and with the danger of the concessionaire losing their
concession), this encourages efficiency and customer satisfaction.


Don't concessioneers pay a fee to get the business? So the government do
get a cut of the profit.



I seriously doubt that the costs would be lower if the Park Service
was running things themselves; that's not what they're set up to
do, and government agencies are notoriously poor in terms of
running "a business" efficiently. (For instance, please compare
the U.S. Postal Service vs., say, FedEx in those areas where
they compete directly.) Nor is there any guarantee at all that
the "profits" in such a case WOULD, in fact, go to the benefit
of the park in question. (The U.S. Gov't. has a nasty habit
of redirecting such funds into unrelated areas.)


The drastic reduction in park ranger staff is another real issue
affecting the quality of the park management. And this may consequently
lead to the eventuality of a 100% privatization of national parks. A
possible argument, which could be "designed", is that management of
national parks by government agency is "inadequate" and "ineffective".
Therefore, greedy corporations would take over and exploit the hell out
of national treasures such as endangered woods and other natural
resources.

I think this is vastly overstating the case. Do you REALLY
believe that there is a danger of ANY private business "taking
over" the national park system in such an unregulated, unsupervised
manner? Again, the present concessionaire system has been in
place for a LONG time - almost as old as the park system itself.

Bob M.

"Bob Myers" wrote in message
...

"Julie M." wrote in message
...
First, a for-profit concession operating in a public-service sites such
as national parks could easily mean higher cost to visitors. The very
nature of a business is to make money. Much of this money should be and
could have been directed to operating budget of national parks instead
of some private corporation's bank accounts.

First, why is "profit" necessarily a bad thing? Yes, the nature
of a business is to make money. Properly regulated and
inspected, etc. (in this case, under the supervision of the Park
Service, and with the danger of the concessionaire losing their
concession), this encourages efficiency and customer satisfaction.


Don't concessioneers pay a fee to get the business? So the government do
get a cut of the profit.



I seriously doubt that the costs would be lower if the Park Service
was running things themselves; that's not what they're set up to
do, and government agencies are notoriously poor in terms of
running "a business" efficiently. (For instance, please compare
the U.S. Postal Service vs., say, FedEx in those areas where
they compete directly.) Nor is there any guarantee at all that
the "profits" in such a case WOULD, in fact, go to the benefit
of the park in question. (The U.S. Gov't. has a nasty habit
of redirecting such funds into unrelated areas.)


The drastic reduction in park ranger staff is another real issue
affecting the quality of the park management. And this may consequently
lead to the eventuality of a 100% privatization of national parks. A
possible argument, which could be "designed", is that management of
national parks by government agency is "inadequate" and "ineffective".
Therefore, greedy corporations would take over and exploit the hell out
of national treasures such as endangered woods and other natural
resources.

I think this is vastly overstating the case. Do you REALLY
believe that there is a danger of ANY private business "taking
over" the national park system in such an unregulated, unsupervised
manner? Again, the present concessionaire system has been in
place for a LONG time - almost as old as the park system itself.

Bob M.

Pls get a life. Concessions in parks all over the country including
National Parks have been dealing with consessionaires(sp?) since the
beginning of time. You think the government would do a better job while
making a profit?? This was taking place under every President since
probably Jefferson.. Your rant just makes you look like an asshole. You
want to bitch about the current President, go to some political site and do
so. It's a free country. Meanwhile, be aware this site is supposed to be
about Travel in the US and Canada. Your post was OT.

Plus, I see you like to cross-post. Take a look at the FAQs for this site,
dummy.




"Winabagel" wrote in message
...
In our recent visit to the Yellowstone NP we learned that the Park was
essentially run by a "concession", a privately-owned for-profit outfit
called Aramark. This huge multi-national corporation basically owns the
big wheels in the Department of the Interior, or at least has these
corrupted politicians in its pocket.

I had thought the National Parks system is suppose to be managed by the
tax-payers supported organization called "the government". But it's
turned out that it cost taxpayers much more to enjoy the NP system now a
day. Everything in the park, such as gifts and food and transportation,
is more expensive than it should be because we have a FOR-PROFIT
organization sits between the people and the beautiful nature with one
objective in mind: MONEY and lots of it. What I don't get is the
national parks belong to everyone in the US - not just for a few rich
and powerful corporations to exploit the park visitors and to capitalize
on what suppose to be free in nature.

The presence of these blood-sucker corporations in national parks has
made it almost not worth it to visit NP any more as these exploitive
hard-core capitalists could easily drain our pockets every time we try
to enjoy the nature, one that God has given us for free!

It's so clear that there is a huge difference between the park rangers
and those who are working for the blood-sucker private corporations in
the parks. The park rangers love their jobs and love what they are
trying to preserve: the beautiful nature. On the other hand, the
explotive private scums do all they can to make money at the expense of
the endangered species. And park rangers are among these endangered
species. Budget cuts have led to a huge reduction on park ranger staff
while the private corporation, including the timber industry, are
beefing up their army of blood-thirsty scums scavenging on all good
nutrients of nature that are important to the survive of good people and
beautiful nature.

There must be some kind of serious corruption going on in the Department
of Interior starting with the Chief named G. W. Bush, who has been known
to the world as the evil leader of the century. This idiot Bush has
funneled hundred of billions of dollars into the pockets of his friends
in the oil industry such as Halliburton while depleting and endangering
the natural resources of the very country he has sworn to protect.

Isn't it time that the American people take back this country before
it's too late???

Pls get a life. Concessions in parks all over the country including
National Parks have been dealing with consessionaires(sp?) since the
beginning of time. You think the government would do a better job while
making a profit?? This was taking place under every President since
probably Jefferson.. Your rant just makes you look like an asshole. You
want to bitch about the current President, go to some political site and do
so. It's a free country. Meanwhile, be aware this site is supposed to be
about Travel in the US and Canada. Your post was OT.

Plus, I see you like to cross-post. Take a look at the FAQs for this site,
dummy.




"Winabagel" wrote in message
...
In our recent visit to the Yellowstone NP we learned that the Park was
essentially run by a "concession", a privately-owned for-profit outfit
called Aramark. This huge multi-national corporation basically owns the
big wheels in the Department of the Interior, or at least has these
corrupted politicians in its pocket.

I had thought the National Parks system is suppose to be managed by the
tax-payers supported organization called "the government". But it's
turned out that it cost taxpayers much more to enjoy the NP system now a
day. Everything in the park, such as gifts and food and transportation,
is more expensive than it should be because we have a FOR-PROFIT
organization sits between the people and the beautiful nature with one
objective in mind: MONEY and lots of it. What I don't get is the
national parks belong to everyone in the US - not just for a few rich
and powerful corporations to exploit the park visitors and to capitalize
on what suppose to be free in nature.

The presence of these blood-sucker corporations in national parks has
made it almost not worth it to visit NP any more as these exploitive
hard-core capitalists could easily drain our pockets every time we try
to enjoy the nature, one that God has given us for free!

It's so clear that there is a huge difference between the park rangers
and those who are working for the blood-sucker private corporations in
the parks. The park rangers love their jobs and love what they are
trying to preserve: the beautiful nature. On the other hand, the
explotive private scums do all they can to make money at the expense of
the endangered species. And park rangers are among these endangered
species. Budget cuts have led to a huge reduction on park ranger staff
while the private corporation, including the timber industry, are
beefing up their army of blood-thirsty scums scavenging on all good
nutrients of nature that are important to the survive of good people and
beautiful nature.

There must be some kind of serious corruption going on in the Department
of Interior starting with the Chief named G. W. Bush, who has been known
to the world as the evil leader of the century. This idiot Bush has
funneled hundred of billions of dollars into the pockets of his friends
in the oil industry such as Halliburton while depleting and endangering
the natural resources of the very country he has sworn to protect.

Isn't it time that the American people take back this country before
it's too late???

Hi!

Bob Myers wrote:

First, you're wrong. SERIOUSLY wrong - the park itself (both
Yellowstone specifically, and the National Park System in
general) is NOT run by a "concession" - it is run by the Park Service.
The concessionaire runs such things as gift shops, snack bars,
lodging in the park (if any), etc.. (And, by the way, the
concessionaire for Yellowstone, and a number of others, isn't
Aramark - it's Xanterra, based in Aurora, CO.)

What I can't understand is the idea of giving all business in a
certain location to one company. It is the same stupid idea in a lot
of airports in the USA. Why not have different restaurants in a NP
run by different businesses? Isn't competition a major part of the
American Way of Live?

Greetings from Southwest Florida
(recently hit by Charley)

--
Gunter Herrmann
Naples, Florida, USA

Hi!

Bob Myers wrote:

First, you're wrong. SERIOUSLY wrong - the park itself (both
Yellowstone specifically, and the National Park System in
general) is NOT run by a "concession" - it is run by the Park Service.
The concessionaire runs such things as gift shops, snack bars,
lodging in the park (if any), etc.. (And, by the way, the
concessionaire for Yellowstone, and a number of others, isn't
Aramark - it's Xanterra, based in Aurora, CO.)

What I can't understand is the idea of giving all business in a
certain location to one company. It is the same stupid idea in a lot
of airports in the USA. Why not have different restaurants in a NP
run by different businesses? Isn't competition a major part of the
American Way of Live?

Greetings from Southwest Florida
(recently hit by Charley)

--
Gunter Herrmann
Naples, Florida, USA

"PeterL" wrote in message
...


Bob: Thanks for the very educational post. But I am afraid it's all a
waste of your time, for the OP anyway. He/she isn't interested in NP's,
how
they are run, or anything about economy. But it's certainly interesting
for
me to read your post.


aolMe too/aol
The end of the OP's post was obviously the point of the whole thing.
Checking Google groups the OP has never posted to Usenet before. At least
under that email address or identity.

--
McWebber
No email replies read
If someone tells you to forward an email to all your friends
please forget that I'm your friend.

"PeterL" wrote in message
...


Bob: Thanks for the very educational post. But I am afraid it's all a
waste of your time, for the OP anyway. He/she isn't interested in NP's,
how
they are run, or anything about economy. But it's certainly interesting
for
me to read your post.


aolMe too/aol
The end of the OP's post was obviously the point of the whole thing.
Checking Google groups the OP has never posted to Usenet before. At least
under that email address or identity.

--
McWebber
No email replies read
If someone tells you to forward an email to all your friends
please forget that I'm your friend.

"Julie M." wrote in message
...
"Bob Myers" wrote in news:1FvUc.8230
:


First, you're wrong. SERIOUSLY wrong - the park itself (both
Yellowstone specifically, and the National Park System in
general) is NOT run by a "concession" - it is run by the Park Service.
The concessionaire runs such things as gift shops, snack bars,
lodging in the park (if any), etc.. (And, by the way, the
concessionaire for Yellowstone, and a number of others, isn't
Aramark - it's Xanterra, based in Aurora, CO.) Second, it has been




While I don't agree with the original post 100% I think it had some good
points.

First, a for-profit concession operating in a public-service sites such
as national parks could easily mean higher cost to visitors.

No, you would be paying more in taxes to pay for public employees and their
retirement benefits. Why do you think you're entitiled to a subsidy when you
visit a National Park?

The very
nature of a business is to make money. Much of this money should be and
could have been directed to operating budget of national parks instead
of some private corporation's bank accounts.

It is. They have to pay to be there to run the concessions. They always
have.


The drastic reduction in park ranger staff is another real issue
affecting the quality of the park management. And this may consequently
lead to the eventuality of a 100% privatization of national parks.

You're jumping to a conclusion unsupported by the evidence.

A
possible argument, which could be "designed", is that management of
national parks by government agency is "inadequate" and "ineffective".
Therefore, greedy corporations would take over and exploit the hell out
of national treasures such as endangered woods and other natural
resources.

They have no access to those and never have.


This perhaps is "the plan" slowly taking place. So, it could very well
be that national park system would become an endangered species itself.


Get a thicker tin foil hat. There are conspiracies to radiate your brain.

--
McWebber
No email replies read
If someone tells you to forward an email to all your friends
please forget that I'm your friend.

"Julie M." wrote in message
...
"Bob Myers" wrote in news:1FvUc.8230
:


First, you're wrong. SERIOUSLY wrong - the park itself (both
Yellowstone specifically, and the National Park System in
general) is NOT run by a "concession" - it is run by the Park Service.
The concessionaire runs such things as gift shops, snack bars,
lodging in the park (if any), etc.. (And, by the way, the
concessionaire for Yellowstone, and a number of others, isn't
Aramark - it's Xanterra, based in Aurora, CO.) Second, it has been




While I don't agree with the original post 100% I think it had some good
points.

First, a for-profit concession operating in a public-service sites such
as national parks could easily mean higher cost to visitors.

No, you would be paying more in taxes to pay for public employees and their
retirement benefits. Why do you think you're entitiled to a subsidy when you
visit a National Park?

The very
nature of a business is to make money. Much of this money should be and
could have been directed to operating budget of national parks instead
of some private corporation's bank accounts.

It is. They have to pay to be there to run the concessions. They always
have.


The drastic reduction in park ranger staff is another real issue
affecting the quality of the park management. And this may consequently
lead to the eventuality of a 100% privatization of national parks.

You're jumping to a conclusion unsupported by the evidence.

A
possible argument, which could be "designed", is that management of
national parks by government agency is "inadequate" and "ineffective".
Therefore, greedy corporations would take over and exploit the hell out
of national treasures such as endangered woods and other natural
resources.

They have no access to those and never have.


This perhaps is "the plan" slowly taking place. So, it could very well
be that national park system would become an endangered species itself.


Get a thicker tin foil hat. There are conspiracies to radiate your brain.

--
McWebber
No email replies read
If someone tells you to forward an email to all your friends
please forget that I'm your friend.