461–470 of 609 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would be actually a nice policy: only allow buybacks using taxed profits. Unfortunately, it's not there yet
Why would that be a good idea?
The main infrastructure company that operates country wide (OpenReach) are heavily regulated by how much they can charge for last mile termination. So that means there's a floor to how cheap services can be, but gives wiggle room for charging more in return for better customer service (e.g. Zen, AAISP). I pay £53 a month, with no yearly price increases, for 900/100 FTTP - which is still pretty pricey compared to other places in Europe, but from what I've seen of the likes of Comcast in the US, is pretty decent. No data caps either.
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.
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'…
Cuz that never happens in the private sector, lol. Guess where I'm at now...
There was a week while consulting pre-COVID I tried to see how many hours of Skyrim I could play on Switch, both in the office and remotely. I got to about 11.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Animals have the instinct to shit in front of you and not feel the slightest discomfort doing so too. Should we all start shitting in front of each other to more closely align our behavior to animal instincts?
Who am I to tell you what to do?
I nominate his doorstep, since who is he to tell us where to poop?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that even if one government were able to fix the oversight issue, its hard to see how subsequent governments can be prevented from ripping up the oversight (e.g. under the rubric of 'removing red tape'). Even if you look at the most likely incoming government, they are reluctant to get rid of the water companies due to cost. Perhaps what is needed is some mechanism whereby the threat of re-nationalisat…
It is a problem largely created by granting them property rights instead of franchises or operating agreements. In a democracy we can never remove the risk of the next government messing it up, but as long as they grant time limited or restricted contracts the opportunity for reversal is there. Which, incidentally, the cynic in me would suggest is the reason for why e.g. the water privatisation was done the way it wa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cutting corners and costs e.g. shutting ticket offices, doing just enough to barely offer the service. It's not like your passengers have any sensible alternative. If that doesn't do it then you can also load the company up with debt and pay yourself a nice dividend until rates rise.
> shutting ticket offices Why should I pay higher prices/taxes to keep ticket offices 90% of the country and increasing don't use open? International Airlines finished moving to e-ticketing 15 years ago
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.
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 cap…
I wonder why this isn’t a more common model. If a utility is effectively a regional monopoly, having said region’s governments be majority shareholders aligns pretty much all the incentives, no? And still helps keep stereotypical “civil servant” working culture out the door
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A better question is, where do they keep finding such gullible lenders? That The Economist , the City of London's answer to Pravda , published this article at all is telling.
> That The Economist, the City of London's answer to Pravda, published this article at all is telling. Do you mean it's extremely left wing? Or pro-authoritarian capitalist? Or the most left-wing publication you can find in an otherwise capitalist group?
But I do think it's a bit of hyperbole in a way, although I'm only tangentially familiar with the publication.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A better question is, where do they keep finding such gullible lenders? That The Economist , the City of London's answer to Pravda , published this article at all is telling.
> That The Economist, the City of London's answer to Pravda, published this article at all is telling. Do you mean it's extremely left wing? Or pro-authoritarian capitalist? Or the most left-wing publication you can find in an otherwise capitalist group?
Pravda is both the Russian word for ‘truth’ (правда) and was/is a publication advancing the interests of the USSR/Russian state establishment.
The ‘economist’ implies a similar ‘truthfulness’ (it must be right about the economy if it’s an economist!) and advances the interests of the London financial establishment.