Live data from Hacker News

Privatisation has been a costly failure in Britain

economist.com

441–450 of 609 posts

Re: Privatisation has been a costly failure in Britain

#441
post #39

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

But the point, yet again is that free markets aren't the goal. Market competition is.

Unregulated markets move away from market competition. They move towards monopolies, exclusivity contracts and similar items. Enforcing competition is the only effective method of benefiting society.

Re: Privatisation has been a costly failure in Britain

#442
post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I believe the best way to make this work is by keeping the network itself in public hands and then having a competition of contributors to the network Even then it doesn't always work out - UK rail services have that system - the infrastructure is maintained by a public body [1], but the operators are private. UK rail is quite expensive, and mediocre in quality compared to our EU counterparts. One of the issues is…

> One of the issues is that it's basically impossible to have competition on a single rail journey joining two large cities - there's aren't enough tracks to support it without making it unprofitable for operators Evidence from the new post-fourth rail package landscape seems to contradict this. Multiple places in Spain, Italy, France are connected with at least two competing high speed rail operators, to massive suc…

It can sort of work if you've got enough spare track capacity, but unlike buses or planes, with trains its quite easy to run out of capacity very soon, especially on mixed traffic railways (e.g. Karlsruhe – Basel at the moment only has capacity for two long distance trains per hour and those two trains need to be flighted together in order to leave enough space for local trains and freight). As soon as you reach that point, competition stops being directly about passengers and moves to the level of train paths instead (meaning you start getting some disalignment of incentives between the railways and the passengers), and consequently can't happen without actively worsening the service offered by the incumbent operator or even "innocent" third parties (local/regional trains as well as freight operators).

Competition also doesn't really work as soon as your journey isn't large metropolis to large metropolis and involves connecting trains, because a) if a connecting train only runs hourly (or at best half-hourly), it's impossible to have attractive connections from that one train to a multitude of competing operators and b) there are usually ticketing problems which start to matter as soon as one of the trains is delayed and you miss a connection.

Spain has, considering its size, economy and population a relatively generous high speed network (to a large extent financed by EU grants) that by necessity (broad gauage vs. standard gauge) is also completely separate from the legacy network and consequently isn't utilised super-heavily. Plus RENFE already sees its AVEs as a sort of plane on wheels and traditionally has a minimum connection time between trains of 60 mins (!) with only some exceptions, so there is still room for running additional trains and things can't get much worse even with competition and incompatible ticketing between operators on top.

France's and Italy's high speed lines are somewhat more heavily utilised, but you can still get comparatively far by staying exclusively on the high speed network. Plus in France the geography favours the simple Paris-to-province model with no complicated connecting services necessary, whereas Italy is favourable to a linear arrangement (Turin - Milan - Bologna - Florence - Rome - Naples are all along the same line).

In Germany on the other hand population centers are somewhat more distributed across the country, the high speed lines are of a more fragmentary nature and you have much more running on mixed traffic lines, plus a lot of network sections are effectively at capacity.

The result is that in Germany competition mostly isn't solely directly about passengers, but often rather about train paths, and almost any new non-DB long distance service that has been introduced in recent years (thankfully there weren't that many) caused varying amounts of havoc among local services running along the same sections of line, or in some cases even with DB's existing long distance trains.

Plus it means that e.g. RENFE and SNCF now see each other as enemies, so good luck booking a journey between Spain and France that involves a change of trains in one country or the other (or even worse, both of them).

Re: Privatisation has been a costly failure in Britain

#443

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.

They don't lose money, they cost money. You can't measure the losses if they even exist

Re: Privatisation has been a costly failure in Britain

#444

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…

> I believe the best way to make this work is by keeping the network itself in public hands and then having a competition of contributors to the network - e.g. electricity providers that add energy to the grid. One area -- in fact, the only area that I can think of -- where privatisation has mostly worked in the UK is the telecommunications market. Here the networks are in private hands, but the providers are forced…

It's testament to how successful some of the early privatisations were that many people now don't realise that the businesses were ever in public hands - eg British Airways, British Petroleum etc. It seems ludicrous to think they were ever nationalised industries now.

Re: Privatisation has been a costly failure in Britain

#445
If you wanted to asses the success of privatization based on observations alone, then you would need an alternate universe in which it did not occur.

Also, according to Wikipedia, the largest shareholder for Thames Water is a Canadian public pension fund, so it is at least partially public, just owned by another country.

Re: Privatisation has been a costly failure in Britain

#446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Karl Marx showed us 150 years ago why your vision is impossible, and that is why we aren't taught about him in grade school despite him being the most famous intellectual in the world. Under capitalism, private capital predominates; it decides the laws and the commons. If you think you've found a way around this, it's only a matter of time. We call it capitalism for a reason.

What's the alternative? State capital - controlled by politicians, media and swing voter/military segments - decide the laws and the commons in socialism/communism/fascism.

Obviously people made the same defeatist appeals about feudalism but here we are. Imagine if we popularized such pessimism about technological progress; we have plenty of cause to.

Edit: I suppose it's not as obvious if you only have an American education.

Re: Privatisation has been a costly failure in Britain

#447
post #25

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…

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.

Yeah exactly. In fact anyone who believes in markets should laugh in the face of private natural monopolies as an obviously terrible idea.

The UK structures water provision as regional monopolies. This should be a hilarious joke but it's the reality. You can't change water company without living in a different region. There is no effective market competition for water provision in the UK. We already rely on price caps to keep this state of affairs in check.

Pretty much the only argument that almost stands up for them is that they're quite good at contributing to private pensions as a byproduct of being good stocks because people need water to not die. We gloss over where the rest of the money goes, possibly into PR management around frequent sewage dumping.

Re: Privatisation has been a costly failure in Britain

#448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The funding for public unions in the UK is $233 billion That’s a pretty amazing figure, how was that calculated? Are you seriously arguing that that the Thames Water CEO was underpaid? They have been mismanaged extraordinarily. Their debts, losses, costs, service and environment records are so poor that nationalisation is being discussed. They have been paying dividends and bonuses throughout. https://www.theguardi…

[deleted]

Re: Privatisation has been a costly failure in Britain

#449
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The infrastructure isn't privatised though, it's maintained by Network Rail.

Which was private under railtrack, but after a number of high profile crashes and failures was taken into public ownership again. Railtrack made a lot of money by selling off land, and other assets, under invested and generally underperformed

Not disagreeing, but words are important here to get at precisely what happened.

> Railtrack made a lot of money

"Made" implies creation, growth, increase.

This is the opposite of what happened.

The money wasn't made. It was /extracted/. They /extracted/ a lot of money.

Railtrack doesn't have that money. Their succeeding entity doesn't have that money. The government doesn't have that money. The taxpayer doesn't have that money. None of that money was invested such that any of these entities might benefit from it in any way. It was removed from the system into private wallets.

The private owners plundered and fled, and the remaining skeleton was socialised again so it might regrow a bit of flesh from public taxes for the next extraction cycle.

Re: Privatisation has been a costly failure in Britain

#450
post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free market has destroyed the affordability of healthcare.

Not really, it works really well for truly free markets like cosmetic surgery and vision correction. The “free market” healthcare in the US isn’t free at all, there are a ton of regulations many of which make it worse, not better.

No, it's because those aren't essential services that people need with little option to competitively shop for. People can choose not to get cosmetic surgery, or postpone it significantly, or shop attorney between many different options.

They frequently can't for their health decisions.

Again, it's 'market competition' amidst healthy consumer choice, not 'free markets' that are beneficial for society.

Post reply on HN