Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Privatisation has been a costly failure in Britain

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 609 posts

Re: Privatisation has been a costly failure in Britain

#271

Post by PartiallyTyped »

boomskats wrote: post #29
spiralpolitik wrote: post #13

The intention of privatization in the UK was never to improve service. It was to transfer wealth from the public to the private sector. From this perspective it's been successful. From the perspective of the British public it's been a complete disaster.

Fortunately, largely owing to our free press, the British public has now learned their lesson and such unfortunate situations will almost certainly be avoided in future. Especially when it comes to our healthcare system.

Looking forward to the same happening in Greece :')

Re: Privatisation has been a costly failure in Britain

#272

Post by [deleted] »

sitharus wrote: post #228
Kiro wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that the whole point of privatisation? By introducing a profit maximisation goal you (supposedly) create a more efficient operation. I've worked in both the public and the private sector and can definitely understand the argument. In my government job it was way easier to slack off and no-one really cared about the results. There was no actual pressure from above to hit targets. You had your budget and it didn'…

It's only cheaper for the consumer when there is a forcing function for price. In a competitive marketplace - lets say breakfast cereal - if you're inefficient another manufacturer can undercut you while maintaining profit margins. There are ways around this of course through product differentiation, but something basic like cornflakes all hover around the same price point. All manufacturers are trying to improve eff…

[deleted]

Re: Privatisation has been a costly failure in Britain

#273

Post by richbell »

dffdsa432 wrote: post #265
cycomanic wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The USPS is "loosing" money because it was told to prefund it's Healthcare having to set aside $100 billion in 10 years (unlike any other company) . Moreover, it's much more a service than a business, e.g. it can not really set its own prices. https://www.barrons.com/articles/usps-louis-dejoy-post-offic...

I don't get it. The USPS has lost billions due to government policies and can't enforce prices due to government policies. They are forced to deliver to unprofitable routes and have prices set to inflation due to government policies. Private delivery services like Amazon and Fedex are generally profitable and don't have these issues. Why is a government alternative better?

> They are forced to deliver to unprofitable routes and have prices set to inflation due to government policies. Private delivery services like Amazon and Fedex are generally profitable and don't have these issues.

I, for one, think it's a good thing that people are entitled to their mail regardless of the profitability of their mail route. That's the point of a public service.

Re: Privatisation has been a costly failure in Britain

#274

Post by HWR_14 »

waihtis wrote: post #264
HWR_14 wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why prefer a private non-profit to the government? I like non-profits in some cases. They're great at funneling money into specific causes that people care about. Especially small ones (a local theater group is the go to example) or politically charged ones. But "the trains running" doesn't seem like one of those. Why not have the government oversee it?

any government system is too likely to be corrupted by politicians in relatively short timeframe

As opposed to the unaccountable board of a non-profit raking in significant income? Where they can pay themselves a nice bonus if they make more money for the non-profit?

Re: Privatisation has been a costly failure in Britain

#275

Post by dm_me_dogs »

pydry wrote: post #120
jack_riminton wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Fake competition in utilities and services makes no sense. The "privatisation" of the UK railways is a prime example. I use quotation marks because it's just privatising the profits and socialising the losses. "from March 2020 to February this year, the Government paid out more than £7.3 billion in operational support to private train operators" - https://bylinetimes.com/2021/05/18/7-billion-covid-bailout-f.…

Even in markets with competition, competition from the public sector is an excellent way of exerting market discipline on dysfunctional markets. If you compare the average quality of housing in, for example, Singapore (where 90% of housing is public) and the UK it's like night and day. UK private landlords are among the laziest and most entitled in the entire world, the land use efficiency is terrible and the buildin…

I will never forget what the media did to Corbyn. Absolute joke.

Re: Privatisation has been a costly failure in Britain

#276

Post by richbell »

iso1631 wrote: post #230
bambataa wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should I pay to maintain a road I’m not using now, or a fire service I haven’t used yet?

Because ticket offices are a costly relic from the 20th century that simply are not needed, as evidenced by the collapsing usage of them.

There's a considerable portion of the population that does not own or feel comfortable using the Internet, and would prefer in-person interactions.

Re: Privatisation has been a costly failure in Britain

#277

Post by lotsofpulp »

WithinReason wrote: post #217
lotsofpulp wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are shareholder returns and profit different?

"borrowed £53bn in debt while distributing £72bn to shareholders" There is the difference

No lender is going to lend a business money just so it can pay the owners.

They must have used the debt to finance operations, as opposed to cutting the dividend or even putting more money in.

This allowed them to continue to have profits in the short term, at the expense of higher interest costs in the long term (which probably cause higher prices for customers in the long term).

Re: Privatisation has been a costly failure in Britain

#278

Post by panick21_ »

dffdsa432 wrote: post #216
bluescrn wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Privatise the profits, Nationalise the losses!"

What about losses from federally funded corporations like USPS and Amtrak that are bailed out every year? Amtrak loses over $1 billion/yr and they are still "nationalized." USPS loses multi billions per year.

Amtrak is the least subsidies mode of Transportation. It has to compete with road transport and the subsidies given to highways, roads and parking is orders of magnitude larger then what Amtrak gets.

Amtrak gets surprisingly small amount of money.

Re: Privatisation has been a costly failure in Britain

#279

Post by friendzis »

avidphantasm wrote: post #75
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…

But what is the definition of a public good? Is it only to be limited to things that are natural monopolies/network systems (as you suggest) or should it also include practically non-excludable and non-rival goods (information)? I would argue we should go further. Some goods should be considered to be morally non-excludable goods. We should have the moral courage to assert that we cannot exclude health care to all pe…

> But what is the definition of a public good?

Whatever the populus via government decides that to be.

Re: Privatisation has been a costly failure in Britain

#280

Post by WithinReason »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #277
WithinReason wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"borrowed £53bn in debt while distributing £72bn to shareholders" There is the difference

No lender is going to lend a business money just so it can pay the owners. They must have used the debt to finance operations, as opposed to cutting the dividend or even putting more money in. This allowed them to continue to have profits in the short term, at the expense of higher interest costs in the long term (which probably cause higher prices for customers in the long term).

Didn't InstantPot just go bust for the same reason? Somebody decided to lend them too.
Post reply on HN