 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
^There's always the other option, Stui and Monkey: Choose between more- and less-appropriate things to privatise, and keep reassessing things.
Some necessary services and natural monopolies are just not naturally profitable without a great thick layer of intransparent contracts and oversight, and government guarantees. There's no point privatising something if the main benefit of privatisation, i.e., competition and risk spreading, doesn't exist.
A good example of something appropriate to privatise was non-core mail services, given the way transportation costs and human communication changed with technology. So, fifty years ago, you would say don't privatise it. Now, no problem.
The point being a fixed, general ideology one way or the other is generally sub-optimal.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
 |
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Good point. I don't have a personal hardon to privatise everything. I do believe that private does it more efficiently but when there's profit to be made the service can suffer if you don't get the measures and KPI's right in the first place.
Each case on it's merits and don't be afraid to explore the options.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | Good point. I don't have a personal hardon to privatise everything. I do believe that private does it more efficiently but when there's profit to be made the service can suffer if you don't get the measures and KPI's right in the first place.
Each case on it's merits and don't be afraid to explore the options. |
And that pretty much sums up my position as well. Government in general is worse at operating things than private businesses in general, but some things have to be run by government because they are natural monopolies and competitive pressure - that great engine of improvement for football teams and for economies - is impossible. where you draw that line, of course, is pretty case-by-case.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
King Monkey
Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Location: On a journey to seek the scriptures of enlightenment....
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | yeah, nah, read the OP.
They only milk it if you put the wrong measures in place. Do it right, and avoid the multinational profit seekers, you can make it work well. |
I did.
My initial comments were probably more based on my interpretation of what has actually happened in Victoria than your hypothetical.
Cost up, quality of service down.
This thought process makes it difficult to see any appropriate measures being effective in protecting the consumer, in relation to quality of service vs cost of service, once a private operator provides a traditionally centralised service.
(Perhaps I yearn for a simpler time........  )
PTID mentioned the appropriateness of selling off some mail services in this day and age; not so appropriate when trying to track a lost parcel sent from Laverton to Werribee and having to confuse some poor sod in Manilla about it!  
(You might be onto something about a "fixed general ideology" on this subject.  "Move with the times" he says..... )
Stui - What are (some of) the rules if you want a 3 year contract to run, say, the government run public transport system??
They can't be too prohibitive or nobody will tender.
They can't be too lax or we get Metro Trains.
_________________
"I am a great sage, equal of heaven.
Grow stick, grow.
Fly cloud, fly.
Oh you are a dee-mon, I love to fiiight." |
|
|
|
|
think positive 
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Man tax
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Not entirely sure this thread is the right one to bump, but it seems close enough – I was listening to this podcast episode today which talks about an experimental libertarian settlement in New Hampshire and how it ran into a problem with bears. Thought it was quite funny and illuminating about what happens when the concept of state-funded social services is removed from community:
Chapo Trap House episode 463: Grin and Bear It
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
roar
Joined: 01 Sep 2004
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Privatisation always leaves a bad taste in my mouth because savings occur but services are also cut so government departments could also spend less if they were allowed to cut the service provided.
Modern Monetary Theory actually suggests taxation isn't needed to fund government programs, the fed needs to simply print some money to cover the costs. Usually, the argument against this would be inflation and currency devaluation but it seems this isn't seen as that big a risk.
_________________
kill for collingwood! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
