211–220 of 609 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
US consumer rail way is a quasi public corporation (Amtrak) that has lost money for decades and is still funded to the tune of over $1 billion per year. You are confusing that with private US rails.
If you're going to insist on focusing on that, I think you'd already missed the point of what you were replying to in your comment that I replied to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Thames Water's CEO has a $1.5 million pay package which is lower than CEOs of corporations of the same size. The funding for public unions in the UK is $233 billion. Great comparison there.
Is that the combined salaries of all union members?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The train operating companies are a particularly bad failure because like e.g. the water companies they get to channel the revenue but unlike the water companies they don't own the capital intensive bits but bid on how much they'll return during the franchise period. As a result, the capital need to start a train operating company is tiny in proportion the revenue flow, and their returns look modest related to revenu…
And one of the worst ironies is that some of our franchises are run by the state rail companies of other countries. Meaning we are subsidising rail travel in foreign countries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Lets see the shareholders:
* French government
* Chinese government
* Australian banks
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Free markets don't magically solve the problems of capitalism. You still have to deal with monopolies, entrenched market leaders, mergers leading to less competition, backroom non-competition agreements, lobbying for prefential treatment, revolving doors between regulators and market players, or just plain corruption and bribery. What I see everywhere, not just in Britain, is the same old story over and over again: p…
odd to say problems of capitalism when none of those are peculiar to capitalism. and a regulated market in which lobbyists vie for preferential treatment is the antithesis of a free market
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The infrastructure isn't privatised though, it's maintained by Network Rail.
"Privatise the profits, Nationalise the losses!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "It's even simpler than that ... their goal is to extract profits" According to the article, profit has not been the primary goal for the utilities though, because there is limited scope for extracting profits from uncompetitive essential utility services - the focus instead has been on maximising shareholder returns. So in the case of the water utilities, they "borrowed £53bn in debt while distributing £72bn to sh…
How are shareholder returns and profit different?
There is the difference
If you actually let public services take their gloves off, they'd shred most tender offers on sight. With few exceptions, hiring people to do things is ALWAYS going to be cheaper if done directly, and it's stupid to pretend that Serco, G4S, etc are delivering value.
There's still room for private providers, and even room for multiple providers (some public, some private) operating in constant competition. Central government should compete on centralised services. Does every hospital in the country need patient management software? Then write some centrally! Does every council need to send out letters and notifications? Then do it centrally!
It's all so stupidly simple. It's a travesty that the people making these decisions have been profiting from doing things the wrong way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In the hands of such practitioners I would call them cultists at this point.
[flagged]
I wish we could just have a sensible grown up discussion about which services are best delivered by the private sector and which by the public sector - there are plenty of both!