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)