Live data from Hacker News

Privatisation has been a costly failure in Britain

economist.com

601–609 of 609 posts

Re: Privatisation has been a costly failure in Britain

#601
post #5

The Economist, publishing an article (even just an opinion piece by a guest author) about privatisation being a failure? Wow...

Oh, that's nothing. The Guardian carried articles against rail nationalization[1], because it was Boris Johnson that proposed it. It's a post-ideological era that we live in. Nobody cares about taxes, incomes and the like any more.[2] The conflict is now red vs blue. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/20/great-... [2] Apart from the occasional oligarch who buys a newspaper because he really cares…

I still find it a little funny that the colours of the two 'teams' are the reverse of what they are in the States.

Re: Privatisation has been a costly failure in Britain

#602
post #177

The UK is increasingly resembling the rest of the world's rentpig. The UK government has made Britain into one massive investment vehicle for foreign capital -- our utilities, leading firms, football teams, landmarks and property all serve to enrich sovereign wealth funds in the Middle East and Asia. These foreign investors have all received lavish incentives and grants, and in return we have been allowed to live way…

Butler To The World

Re: Privatisation has been a costly failure in Britain

#603
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As opposed to state run education where the best possible education is available to everybody? Is that what we see in public education?

We do see this in Switzerland, Finland, etc. But this is due to a competent Department of Education, which simply doesn't exist in the UK. Infact the UK DoE isn't even just incompetent - it is quite clearly maliciously sabotaging education, there is no other logical conclusion for the farcical policies that are in use.

What kind of UK policies are you referring to?

Re: Privatisation has been a costly failure in Britain

#604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes letters, the backbone of revenue for any delivery service.

Irrelevant snipe. I am not the one who said "a similar service". In a world where USPS had to compete, other entities could deliver letters.

It's extremely relevant. Other entities could deliver letters, but would they? At prices competitive with USPS?

Re: Privatisation has been a costly failure in Britain

#605
post #177

The UK is increasingly resembling the rest of the world's rentpig. The UK government has made Britain into one massive investment vehicle for foreign capital -- our utilities, leading firms, football teams, landmarks and property all serve to enrich sovereign wealth funds in the Middle East and Asia. These foreign investors have all received lavish incentives and grants, and in return we have been allowed to live way…

Taking money from foreigners for things which necessarily remain located in Britain and available to the British public seems like a pretty good deal. Football teams, for instance - billionaires want to pour money in, we get to watch an incredibly competitive league as a result. No downside.

Re: Privatisation has been a costly failure in Britain

#606
post #568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

80% of all medical procedures are elective. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8542497/

Apologies. I meant cosmetic or optional surgeries (which is what you originally referenced). Elective surgery just means that it is scheduled in advance, not that it is a trivial or unnecessary procedure. Elective surgery covers everything from cosmetic surgery to non-emergency procedures like mastectomies. But I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here. Many medical procedures are necessary even if not urgen…

Most nations care about the health of it’s citizens, hence why every single developed nation has some form or other of universal healthcare.

You realize that most countries have some form of private healthcare, right? For example Europe? There is the public system, but also a parallel private system.

Apparently that doesn't work because which is antithetical to a company’s priority of delivering value to shareholders and executives".

Re: Privatisation has been a costly failure in Britain

#607
post #434

Canada privatized our railways in the 1990s. While it created a hugely profitable company for shareholders, it has been a pestilence on Canadian society since. Canadians do benefit from a somewhat more efficient freight network, but overall we've seen an unsafe, poorly maintained, but highly efficiently run rail network. It is no longer possible for Canadian provinces or cities to make any effective use of infrastruc…

At the same time, private carriers are losing out to trucking because trucking doesn’t pay a fair cost for the use of roads and RRs have to pay to upkeep their tracks. In the end, it may have been better for them to be able to offload the infra costs. Due to this, they followed the model of minimizing infrastructure, equipment, and crew expenses which left them with slow service only good for a sliver of shipping. Th…

Agree with this totally.

re: trucking. I agree the industry essentially gets "free infrastructure", although in their defence the "gas tax" concept was designed to cover these costs and heavy users are the top payers of that tax. (I do realize gas tax is now just general revenue pretty much everywhere)

Re: Privatisation has been a costly failure in Britain

#608
Regardless of what everyone thinks, the real situation on the ground is that companies like Thames Water have been siphoning off profits rather than using them to keep the infrastructure up to date/repaired.

When I moved in to where I am now in London (early 2020, whew), TW were already digging the road up literally every 2-6 weeks, as they'd fix a water leak, then a new leak would spring up down the road (because the newly repaired point was strong enough that other weaker points became exposed) and so on and so forth when what they really need to do is RIP ALL THE OLD PIPES OUT AND PUT NEW ONES IN.

The way that road repair seems to be done in the UK is that potholes are ignored until the road is full of them, then the entire road gets resurfaced. My road was resurfaced during this time, it was beautifully flat and new...and then FUCKING THAMES WATER CAME AND DUG IT UP TO FIX THEIR LEAKS. Newly surfaced road, now scarred with dozens and dozens of ugly patches where TW has not done their fucking job.

And now, apparently all of this obvious shit is coming to light and people are increasingly aware that water rates are bound to go up as TW finds a way to pay for all the pipes that are completely fucked because they haven't been doing their job this whole time.

What an absolute disgrace. As a Kiwi who's living here, the worst part of the UK is both sides of the useless government and the apathetic population here who doesn't outright demand more from it; I wish they were more like the French.

Re: Privatisation has been a costly failure in Britain

#609
post #606

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apologies. I meant cosmetic or optional surgeries (which is what you originally referenced). Elective surgery just means that it is scheduled in advance, not that it is a trivial or unnecessary procedure. Elective surgery covers everything from cosmetic surgery to non-emergency procedures like mastectomies. But I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here. Many medical procedures are necessary even if not urgen…

Most nations care about the health of it’s citizens, hence why every single developed nation has some form or other of universal healthcare. You realize that most countries have some form of private healthcare, right? For example Europe? There is the public system, but also a parallel private system. Apparently that doesn't work because which is antithetical to a company’s priority of delivering value to shareholders…

Yes, I do realize that many countries that have a public system of healthcare also have private options. In those countries, the public system sets reasonable healthcare rates and the private companies have to compete with those publicly set prices so we don’t see insane prices like we do in private only healthcare systems.
Post reply on HN