Will it improve the quality of the services provided if privatized?
(
BrokenCoccyx doesn't mind if you grope on, Mon 16 Jul 2012, 22:04,
Reply)
Some research may be in order.
Having seen a parent die at a young age, I could give a damn about who profits from helping someone to heal.
(
BrokenCoccyx doesn't mind if you grope on, Mon 16 Jul 2012, 22:11,
Reply)
Shouldn't have to be run for profit,
tendered out to the lowest bidder where cutting corners could lead to bigger mistakes being made.
(
maiden is filmed before a live studio audience, Mon 16 Jul 2012, 22:15,
Reply)
Perhaps, but not if there are guidelines in place.
I mean, the car I drive was made by someone who has made huge profits, but I don't hold it against them.
If the rules of government contracting call for lowest bidder, then perhaps the rules should be changed.
(
BrokenCoccyx doesn't mind if you grope on, Mon 16 Jul 2012, 22:19,
Reply)
You want to see our train system
or our energy providers. Not a pretty picture...
(
Fadgebadger Sweaty sumo wanks for everyone!, Mon 16 Jul 2012, 22:26,
Reply)
Yeah, you can't really have a competitive rail network when you have a fixed number of rails (unlike the airline industry for example). You just end up of different companies running different parts of the network which isn't ideal. In fairness though, the network is actually better run now than it used to be and you could argue you'd still be running slam-door victorian trains if the government was doing it. And a lot of our energy is imported so that sucks.
(
JamTallons, Mon 16 Jul 2012, 22:58,
Reply)
If something is run at profit, one has to take that profit out
So if that is, say, 20% profit the directors want to take or the shareholders and/or other market forces make them take, either the service costs 20% more or all employees (except directors, of course) are employed at 20% less, or 20% less is spent on goods... etc. It really is that simple.
And when it is public money being spent on paying for the service, it is a) a cash cow and b) a massive waste.
Everyone has this image of small companies competing to offer better services by being more efficient. You've got to work out what "efficient" actually means for the people doing the actual work. And if you're privatising a single company, you are creating a monopoly which basically answers to no one, can treat its staff and suppliers like shit and clear up in any market, all the while getting more and more expensive to run.
(, Mon 16 Jul 2012, 22:33, Reply)
It's a good point.
The argument against having the government do it is removing it from the political process, removing waste and graft and encouraging innovation that government work does not encourage. In other words, if I can imagine a way to get the same task done for 1/3 the cost that the government does, the taxpayers come out ahead if you pay me only 2/3 of the government amount.
(
BrokenCoccyx doesn't mind if you grope on, Mon 16 Jul 2012, 23:10,
Reply)
Obviously far too late for a reply to this thread... might gaz you...
But yeah, those are the ideals trotted out to justify a privitisation every time...but how often does the govt end up paying 2/3 of what it did for the service?
Our trains are a case worth noting. When they were public, they cost, iirc, 2Bil/year. 10 years after privitisation, they cost 5Bil. That is 5Bil subsidy. Inflation should put it at 3Bil, and the fairs have increased ahead of inflation, too.
But is the service better? I was offered more "choice". Yes, I have a lot more "choice" now - extremely confusing fairs and massive penalties for the wrong one, and all the train cos fighting about who's fault any particular problem is, and a collapsed Railtrack which had to be run publically again (No directors or shareholders out of pocket, mind) but they are thinking of again selling off.
Imagine if running that service well was life-or-death?
(, Tue 17 Jul 2012, 7:40, Reply)
And, of course, if one is privitising a public "monopoly",
that 20% "profit" the "subsidy" the public is paying for is, essentially, paying for the stockmarket. We are subsidising our own stockmarket. This is surely not "capitalist". And they have the gall to make the argument about "ideals"...
(, Tue 17 Jul 2012, 8:18, Reply)
Only if they are made accountable.
But with this sort of thing bureaucracy is king and ruins it.
(
JamTallons, Mon 16 Jul 2012, 23:07,
Reply)