|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 27, 2023 8:32:51 GMT
Yes it is what happened. It just didn't happen in all nationalised services. You have been avoiding the obvious like this for most of this thread. A monopoly creates a potential political weapon. I haven't avoided it. I just think in some cases nationalised is better than private ownership. Those cases being where the product is essential and there is no competition. If I acknowledge nationalised services can become political footballs, that doesn't change my view above which already takes this factor into consideration. It depends on factors that are out of the public's direct control. It might well be better for the public to put up with a private monopoly that only extracts money, but still provides the service reliably. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Aug 27, 2023 8:51:37 GMT
I haven't avoided it. I just think in some cases nationalised is better than private ownership. Those cases being where the product is essential and there is no competition. If I acknowledge nationalised services can become political footballs, that doesn't change my view above which already takes this factor into consideration. It depends on factors that are out of the public's direct control. It might well be better for the public to put up with a private monopoly that only extracts money, but still provides the service reliably. Presumably run by a mythical altruistic company. Still its interesting that you think money is such an unimportant factor in providing a service. I thought most privatisation was sold on the basis of cutting costs. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 27, 2023 9:06:24 GMT
It depends on factors that are out of the public's direct control. It might well be better for the public to put up with a private monopoly that only extracts money, but still provides the service reliably. Presumably run by a mythical altruistic company. Still its interesting that you think money is such an unimportant factor in providing a service. I thought most privatisation was sold on the basis of cutting costs. Not altruistic. It's not in the financial interests of those selling the service to allow inefficiency or shut it off for some political cause (ie removing an elected government). The problem with nationalisation is that this mechanism of reward is abandoned and so it leaves a giant lever of control over the public and their choices. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Aug 27, 2023 12:22:56 GMT
Presumably run by a mythical altruistic company. Still its interesting that you think money is such an unimportant factor in providing a service. I thought most privatisation was sold on the basis of cutting costs. Not altruistic. It's not in the financial interests of those selling the service to allow inefficiency or shut it off for some political cause (ie removing an elected government). The problem with nationalisation is that this mechanism of reward is abandoned and so it leaves a giant lever of control over the public and their choices. But it is in the financial interests of those selling to charge the maximum they can for the minimum service. I never suggested a private entities try to use it to control government. As a business we chare the maximum we can for our product. That maximum is controlled by two things. Competition and what the public will pay. So if I sell something you must have (An essential service) with no competition then I can charge what I like for the worst possible service. If government cap the price, then I simply reduce the service quality even further. We see that with Trains, Water, Power. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 27, 2023 12:34:56 GMT
Not altruistic. It's not in the financial interests of those selling the service to allow inefficiency or shut it off for some political cause (ie removing an elected government). The problem with nationalisation is that this mechanism of reward is abandoned and so it leaves a giant lever of control over the public and their choices. But it is in the financial interests of those selling to charge the maximum they can for the minimum service. I never suggested a private entities try to use it to control government. Indeed - but even in a monopoly this isn't a completely free hand. If you charge more for electricity, people will use less. There is an optimal ratio price between price and any cost. It also leaves the people (government) free to disengage hire another monopoly contractor (to sack you). Richard Branson may put his hand up and say "I can supply more for less" You seem to be glossing over the real problem with having a supplier fixed into (onto) the government itself. The public sector in the uk has a terrible reputation for ruthlessly exploiting its power against the public and some would say that bad reputation is well earned. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Aug 27, 2023 12:55:05 GMT
But it is in the financial interests of those selling to charge the maximum they can for the minimum service. I never suggested a private entities try to use it to control government. The amount of electric we use does not vary that much. Oh yes we see that happen all the time don't we. (Assuming no nice little non exec jobs are quietly offered to retiring ministers. Well I'll let decide what I think, as usual. Examples? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 27, 2023 13:04:36 GMT
Once again, you pick out the points you feel can be dealt with and cast a blind spot over the rest or the context of the discussion
The price issue is a wash because it isn't countered by an advantage of the other option. We are comparing one monopoly with another.
The amount of electricity we use would change if the price rocketed up to infinity. Even a monopoly doesn't allow you to do this, which was my point.
It doesn't matter that Richard Branson doesn't step in every second week, because the possibility theoretically exists and it isn't balanced by any option on the other side.
Examples are the public sector wars against elected governments in the seventies and eighties.
Ps - I would happily call a truce and throw my hat in with water, electricity and rail nationalisation, if we could first secure the permanent (legal) destruction of the public sector unions. These Soviet style monstrosities should not exist.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Aug 27, 2023 13:43:07 GMT
Zzzz And here's the absurdium argument. Which proves absolutely nothing. The bit you miss is that Richard Branson is not offered the chance. Thames water charge £3,700 to take a pipe from the watermain to a stop tap 1 mtr away on the path. There's a 6 month wait for the service and no choice but to use them. I know because we've paid them to do it. And to cap it all we had to install a temporary storage tank while we waited for the connection and they charged us a weekly hire for the tap and pipe to fill it from a stand pipe. I find it hard to believe a nationalised service could provide a worse or more expensive service. Are you mean unions. The same unions that are blocking progress now. Only NOW its worse because the private train companies they work for get paid whether they take passengers or not, so the strikes go on forever. I'm not in favour of removing unions entirely, but I would like to see their powers much reduced. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 27, 2023 13:54:01 GMT
You are almost at the point of advocating a fully private model or suggesting a way to economically remove the monopoly.
You keep forgetting that you are not highlighting weaknesses of one system that are also mirrored by strengths of the other.
This question might help to focus the discussion - what are the advantages of nationalisation?
also -
How do you reduce the power of a union that can turn the nation's lights on and off at will?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Aug 27, 2023 14:57:55 GMT
This question might help to focus the discussion - what are the advantages of nationalisation? More people going on strike - there are far more days lost in the Public sector than the Private. Whether that is an advantage depends on your point of view |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Aug 27, 2023 15:14:31 GMT
You are almost at the point of advocating a fully private model or suggesting a way to economically remove the monopoly. You keep forgetting that you are not highlighting weaknesses of one system that are also mirrored by strengths of the other. This question might help to focus the discussion - what are the advantages of nationalisation? also - Can I clarify the two we are comparing first Just to save confusion. 1, A privately owned supplier of (and only of) a critical or essential service. Where they are the only supplier. (No choice) 2, A nationalised service of a critical or essential service. My argument is for these only and specifically. To answer your question. The advantage of a nationalised supplier is they are answerable to the government and government can be elected and unelected by the people. Thus when the Tories cut the NHS budget to such a degree that they started failing, public opinion turned not against the NHS but against the Tories, forcing Sunak to find the wages and funds to return it to its previous and acceptable state. You make it illegal for them to do so. You limit their strike action etc. Your question. Why does it make a difference if the union represents a public bodies workers or a private bodies workers? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 27, 2023 15:38:26 GMT
This question might help to focus the discussion - what are the advantages of nationalisation? More people going on strike - there are far more days lost in the Public sector than the Private. This is true - a public sector striker isn't haunted by the disquieting prospect of his employer going bankrupt. He knows there is effectively an infinite pool of money waiting at the other side of table. The problem really starts when the government joins in - ie the government negotiating the deal doesn't have to worry that it makes economic sense either, because the taxpayer is waiting (forced) to pick up any mismatch in reality. I can't think of a better basis for a 'convenient arrangement'. Person A and Person B squabbling about hows much to take from person's C's bank account |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Aug 27, 2023 15:58:07 GMT
More people going on strike - there are far more days lost in the Public sector than the Private. This is true - a public sector striker isn't haunted by the disquieting prospect of his employer going bankrupt. He knows there is effectively an infinite pool of money waiting at the other side of table. The problem really starts when the government joins in - ie the government negotiating the deal doesn't have to worry that it makes economic sense either, because the taxpayer is waiting (forced) to pick up any mismatch in reality. I can't think of a better basis for a 'convenient arrangement'. Person A and Person B squabbling about hows much to take from person's C's bank account That might be true at this moment, but its not a common thing. Its only happened now because real time wages shrunk and shrunk. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 27, 2023 15:58:45 GMT
The advantage of a nationalised supplier is they are answerable to the government and government can be elected and unelected by the people. In the context of these discussions, privatised companies are also answerable to government through the terms of their licensing Your question. Why does it make a difference if the union represents a public bodies workers or a private bodies workers? Because, in the case of a private company, the strike is against a private entity that can only offer what makes some economic sense in terms of the value of the service they provide (sell). The company can also replace its workers without having to go through civil service HR. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Aug 27, 2023 16:03:34 GMT
The advantage of a nationalised supplier is they are answerable to the government and government can be elected and unelected by the people. In the context of these discussions, privatised companies are also answerable to government through the terms of their licensing Your question. Why does it make a difference if the union represents a public bodies workers or a private bodies workers? Because, in the case of a private company, the strike is against a private entity that can only offer what makes some economic sense in terms of the value of the service they provide (sell). The company can also replace its workers without having to go through civil service HR. You missed out the critical factors of this conversation. That the service is essential, that they are the only supplier. Put the goal posts back where they were and your argument doesn't work. |
|
