Privatisation has been a costly failure in Britain • Hacker News Board

Re: Privatisation has been a costly failure in Britain

#151

Post by lostlogin » Tue, Jul 11, 2023, 10:34 AM UTC

mnd999 wrote: post #54

wolframhempel wrote: post #9

I am a deep believer in free markets as the most efficient mechanism for distributing goods and services, creating better offerings and lower prices through competition and encapsulating risk in innovation. Unfortunately, none of these apply to the privatization of inherently public commodities that run on top of an underlying network infrastructure. This can be streets, railway tracks or water pipes - whenever there…

Thames water has to be allowed to go bust, and the shareholders need to lose their shirts, because that’s what has to happen when a company is so badly run. Otherwise the abuse will continue. However, I would like to keep my water supply so somebody has to sort this situation out quickly.

The supply hasn’t been looked after, but less obviously, they have been pouring waste into rivers, creeks and the sea. Profit!

Re: Privatisation has been a costly failure in Britain

#152

Post by tialaramex » Tue, Jul 11, 2023, 10:34 AM UTC

mnd999 wrote: post #42

LatteLazy wrote: post #30

The real issue here is that privatisation was and is a political football instead of a practical policy. Should the government run coal mines at a loss which have no strategic value just to keep jobs? No. Should the government run natural monopolies in strategic or socially important areas (like railways, water utilities, etc)? Yes. But instead what started at privatising the former turned into an ideological push to…

Just to keep jobs? No. To ensure resiliency of supply? maybe. Probably moot as this point though since we should be getting away from coal anyway.

Sure, Margaret Thatcher accidentally did us a favour by killing the coal unions.

But just in case you thought "Good, no more coal" the Tories actually authorised a brand new coal mine not so long ago, because sure, it's a terrible idea but it will make somebody wealthy and as we see here, their priority is to make the wealthiest people even wealthier.

Re: Privatisation has been a costly failure in Britain

#153

Post by dffdsa432 » Tue, Jul 11, 2023, 10:35 AM UTC

giaour wrote: post #77

mrfumier wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"And you don't extract profits from a rail line by offering the best service." So how do you extract profits then?

Offering shitty, expensive service. It's not like customers can use a competing rail line, so every dollar you invest in customer service is a dollar out of your pocket.

The USA's rail lines are privatized and they're anything but "shitty" and "expensive" considering they're lower cost than trucking.

Re: Privatisation has been a costly failure in Britain

#154

Post by XorNot » Tue, Jul 11, 2023, 10:35 AM UTC

avidphantasm wrote: post #98

fy20 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My country recently (2019) privatized the electricity supply. The infrastructure is owner and operated by a government entity, but the company you buy electricity from is a private entity, and you can choose which supplier you use. Generation was already privatized a long time ago. It was advertised as being able to offer lower prices to the consumer through competition, but all it has done is provided more ways for…

> but all it has done is provided more ways for private companies to extract money from the general population. Then the system is operating as it was designed to. This is the coercive law of competition in action. And regulation won’t help in the end. Ultimately, without an overarching ideological project beyond capital accumulation, the motivation to accumulate wealth dissolves all social bonds that enforce trustwo…

"Laws are sometimes broken therefore why even bother having laws?"

We don't make murder legal because it still happens, and the existence of corruption doesn't make regulation a bad idea - it means we need to clamp down on corruption.

White collar crime has good PR representation, and that needs to stop.

Re: Privatisation has been a costly failure in Britain

#155

Post by jdasdf » Tue, Jul 11, 2023, 10:36 AM UTC

dffdsa432 wrote: post #138

juujian wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's even simpler than that. All of these privatized entities are incredibly efficient... at extracting profits from the public. Of course their goal is to extract profits. And you don't extract profits from a rail line by offering the best service. Bonus points if you can convince the government to bail you out and provide some extra cash.

Do government unions not try to maximize their profits from the public or am I missing something?

They do!

Re: Privatisation has been a costly failure in Britain

#156

Post by dffdsa432 » Tue, Jul 11, 2023, 10:36 AM UTC

figmert wrote: post #140

dffdsa432 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do government unions not try to maximize their profits from the public or am I missing something?

Those in the unions are the public.

Using your faulty logic, the owners of the privatized corporations are public citizens too.

Re: Privatisation has been a costly failure in Britain

#157

Post by lostlogin » Tue, Jul 11, 2023, 10:36 AM UTC

dffdsa432 wrote: post #138

juujian wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's even simpler than that. All of these privatized entities are incredibly efficient... at extracting profits from the public. Of course their goal is to extract profits. And you don't extract profits from a rail line by offering the best service. Bonus points if you can convince the government to bail you out and provide some extra cash.

Do government unions not try to maximize their profits from the public or am I missing something?

You look at these crappy companies and the problem you see is unionised staff?

Have you seen the dividends and bonuses at Thames Water, or read the article posted here?

Re: Privatisation has been a costly failure in Britain

#158

Post by gnfargbl » Tue, Jul 11, 2023, 10:36 AM UTC

fy20 wrote: post #47

wolframhempel wrote: post #9

I am a deep believer in free markets as the most efficient mechanism for distributing goods and services, creating better offerings and lower prices through competition and encapsulating risk in innovation. Unfortunately, none of these apply to the privatization of inherently public commodities that run on top of an underlying network infrastructure. This can be streets, railway tracks or water pipes - whenever there…

My country recently (2019) privatized the electricity supply. The infrastructure is owner and operated by a government entity, but the company you buy electricity from is a private entity, and you can choose which supplier you use. Generation was already privatized a long time ago. It was advertised as being able to offer lower prices to the consumer through competition, but all it has done is provided more ways for…

In the UK, we have a similar system, and for a decent time it actually did deliver low energy prices for us. The way this worked was that a new energy provider could easily set up and offer low tariffs, backed by private investment and a gamble that long-term prices would stay low. Of course, when prices rose, that gamble failed... and who picked up the bill? Why, the taxpayer, of course! [1]

The overall effect of this game was that more astute consumers, who tended to switch to the lower-cost providers, were ultimately subsidised by the less-astute consumers who stuck with the traditional players. Or to put it another way, the rich were subsidised by the poor.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63805028

Re: Privatisation has been a costly failure in Britain

#159

Post by JumpCrisscross » Tue, Jul 11, 2023, 10:37 AM UTC

figmert wrote: post #140

dffdsa432 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do government unions not try to maximize their profits from the public or am I missing something?

Those in the unions are the public.

> Those in the unions are the public

This is a nonsense delineation in systems thinking. That railroad shareholders are also the public doesn't justify ripping them off.

Unions are beholden to the same impulses towards monopoly and rent-seeking as corporations. Swap members (i.e. sellers of labour) for shareholders (i.e. sellers of capital) and employers (i.e. buyers of labour) for customers (i.e. buyers of goods and services) and union management starts looking remarkably like its corporate analog, churning undifferentiated workers into a differentiated and thus premium block of labour as truly as a mill grinds forests into houses.

Re: Privatisation has been a costly failure in Britain

#160

Post by hsjqllzlfkf » Tue, Jul 11, 2023, 10:38 AM UTC

mrfumier wrote: post #106

hsjqllzlfkf wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cut costs. And if youre in a monopoly position, you can in addition prices. I mean, do you really not understand how earnings are calculated, or are you trolling?

I don't understand. If it's a monopoly, it's not a free market, by definition. Seems like you are the one trolling here.

You asked how profits are extracted, and I answered your question. Now you're bringing up monopoly vs free market, which has nothing to do with the question.