plan for collapse of Thames Water

[FoxEye]

Currency existed long before the public sector.

In name only. Even going back to times when each city had its own currency, there was always an administrative class. Always.

And they worked for the rulers. Setting laws, setting the value of currency, resolving disputes.

You have some weird idea that everybody can function just fine without any kind of administrative or law-giving class, and that private companies can substitute ???? (something?) for all the legal codes and everything else we've developed over millennia.

I'm not sure how it would work, and I suspect it wouldn't. Would be some kind of wild west where CEOs behaved like the mafia, most likely.

 

[Dis86]

Let's hope you don't have a fire on your site or a worker gets badly mauled by a machine (absolutely no jokes akin to mafia style here) as no fire service or ambulance staff.

As for workers with no qualifications, as a teacher I will put my hand up and say we do fail some kids/young adults with their qualifications on paper, but I said ZERO maths, language, etc. Not a piece of paper that says they can. How will you train up workers? Your training staff need to be educated. Hard when they are illiterate and innumerate.

FluffySheep

So how did education occur before state schools in this country? And I'll be clear...education did occur.

Did you know that the world renowned NYFD originated from private fire institutions?

Do you think the fire brigade rock up to an oil platform fire?

 

[Dis86]

In name only. Even going back to times when each city had its own currency, there was always an administrative class. Always.

And they worked for the rulers. Setting laws, setting the value of currency, resolving disputes.

You have some weird idea that everybody can function just fine without any kind of administrative or law-giving class, and that private companies can substitute ???? (something?) for all the legal codes and everything else we've developed over millennia.

I'm not sure how it would work, and I suspect it wouldn't. Would be some kind of wild west where CEOs behaved like the mafia, most likely.

I've already given you the entities.

 

[FoxEye]

So how did education occur before state schools in this country? And I'll be clear...education did occur.

Did you know that the world renowned NYFD originated from private fire institutions?

You don't have to go back very far at all to a time when the workers were not even literate, let alone educated. In this country.

Education was the domain of the elite. We've only had basic education for the masses for a very (comparatively) short time, indeed.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

I can't see gangsta and now perma'd OP's name without thinking of Numberwang.

 

[Dis86]

You don't have to go back very far at all to a time when the workers were not even literate, let alone educated. In this country.

Education was the domain of the elite. We've only had basic education for the masses for a very (comparatively) short time, indeed.

Again...corporation towns.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Creating value is what drives an economy.
That can certainly be within the state control or private.
If most of your creation resides within the private sector then that sector generates most of the added value. Shouldn't be hard to understand.
Eg if we moved all the oil, gas, energy companies etc to public ownership there would be a large switch from private to public generation of value added.

You have to tax private enterprise to pay for the bits that they do not in effect pay for (as mentioned most of the public services), where as if you were to provide more of the services from the pubic purse they could come from the created value and you could not charge for them.
Public sector employees that pay tax are in effect discounted in effect. Pay them £30k tax them £5k, real cost to the state is £25k.

If you compare a state run/command economy (such as the old USSR) there is no confusion that it does not generate value/income/wealth even without a private sector, the issue is its generally accepted it did so less efficiently.

 

[FoxEye]

If you compare a state run/command economy (such as the old USSR) there is no confusion that it does not generate value/income/wealth even without a private sector, the issue is its generally accepted it did so less efficiently.

There are lots of times when private has been inefficient, esp when it comes to infrastructure (this thread!)

The private railways that marked the initial railway boom in this country often built multiple redundant competing lines. Eventually many of these companies went bust as their debts mounted.

Today, the fiber rollout where multiple telcos are overbuilding the same areas where they are chasing the same customers, whilst ignoring other areas they all consider non-viable. Overbuilt 4x in some places! And then each different company erecting their own telegraph poles, as they refuse to share each others (only BT is compelled to share).

Again, we're seeing multiple companies enter administration, mergers and acquisitions, etc.

The whole goldrush/boom then bust cycle is itself surely inefficient, compared to an organised, planned rollout by a publicly owned body.

I'm not sure where the general idea of private sector = efficient comes from, but it's been made a mockery many times over - esp wrt to infrastructure.

And with the current trend of mega mergers which shows no sign of stopping, we may simply be headed for an period where there is only one player in many markets. Will be fun to see how "efficient" a private sector monopoly is. I mean, many US states have monopoly telcos, and they hate them.

 

[Werewolf]

Again...corporation towns.

There was a song about how popular companies towns were, I seem to remember it was really happy and joyous about them.

Companies without some form of at least marginally independent oversight have a really bad history and pretty much every single law and regulation that the government has in regards to governance, fiscal responsibility of companies, workers rights etc is based on companies and individuals inside those companies doing something so outrageously bad that someone had to step in to force them to act somewhat decently, or at least pretend to.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

There are lots of times when private has been inefficient, esp when it comes to infrastructure (this thread!)

The private railways that marked the initial railway boom in this country often built multiple redundant competing lines. Eventually many of these companies went bust as their debts mounted.

Today, the fiber rollout where multiple telcos are overbuilding the same areas where they are chasing the same customers, whilst ignoring other areas they all consider non-viable. Overbuilt 4x in some places! And then each different company erecting their own telegraph poles, as they refuse to share each others (only BT is compelled to share).

Again, we're seeing multiple companies enter administration, mergers and acquisitions, etc.

The whole goldrush/boom then bust cycle is itself surely inefficient, compared to an organised, planned rollout by a publicly owned body.

I'm not sure where the general idea of private sector = efficient comes from, but it's been made a mockery many times over - esp wrt to infrastructure.

And with the current trend of mega mergers which shows no sign of stopping, we may simply be headed for an period where there is only one player in many markets. Will be fun to see how "efficient" a private sector monopoly is. I mean, many US states have monopoly telcos, and they hate them.

The thing is with the water the issue was the asset stripping in effect.

Anyway history gives us the lesson in regards private vs centralised. Like I said the USSR, places like NK
Its really not up for debate, its not an idea, its well accepted by economists.

Thing is the more your economy is private driven then generally the higher the inequality.
Its very general as places like Sweden found a better balance than most.

 

[Dis86]

There was a song about how popular companies towns were, I seem to remember it was really happy and joyous about them.

Companies without some form of at least marginally independent oversight have a really bad history and pretty much every single law and regulation that the government has in regards to governance, fiscal responsibility of companies, workers rights etc is based on companies and individuals inside those companies doing something so outrageously bad that someone had to step in to force them to act somewhat decently, or at least pretend to.

Whereas people are singing the praises of the UK public sector and government right now?

Models of efficiency and morality are they?

 

[FoxEye]

Whereas people are singing the praises of the UK public sector and government right now?

Models of efficiency and morality are they?

The East Coast Mainline did really well under public ownership, recently After two franchisees both failed. It even returned money to the treasury, didn't it..

It's hard to compare anything else as it was all flogged off to the private sector literally before I was born

 

[Dis86]

The East Coast Mainline did really well under public ownership, recently After two franchisees both failed. It even returned money to the treasury, didn't it..

It's hard to compare anything else as it was all flogged off to the private sector literally before I was born

All formerly UK state owned energy companies have massively increased financial performance after privatisation.

On the main topic of this thread...the water companies are returning massive dividends to share holders and paying senior staff very well. Largely because of a lack of accountability by the erm...ah yeah...public sector.

 

[FoxEye]

The thing is with the water the issue was the asset stripping in effect.

Anyway history gives us the lesson in regards private vs centralised. Like I said the USSR, places like NK
Its really not up for debate, its not an idea, its well accepted by economists.

Thing is the more your economy is private driven then generally the higher the inequality.
Its very general as places like Sweden found a better balance than most.

Infrastructure is a special case and must really have a centralised approach.

Otherwise, you have chaos, to a lesser or greater degree.

I'm not talking about a completely centralised economy, just infrastructure.

Take National Highways. Now imagine all the roads are privately owned. Chaos. Absolute chaos. Didn't Mexico try this fairly recently?

 

[FoxEye]

All formerly UK state owned energy companies have massively increased financial performance after privatisation.

Great for shareholders, but for customers? Are we currently living in the promised land of low bills and exceptional service?

No, no we are not.

Case in point: I challenge you to get through to British Gas's customer services. I'll give you a week. No, I'll be fair. 6 months. Try to reach BG's customer services in 6 months... I'm not even sure they exist..

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Infrastructure is a special case and must really have a centralised approach.

Otherwise, you have chaos, to a lesser or greater degree.

I'm not talking about a completely centralised economy, just infrastructure.

Take National Highways. Now imagine all the roads are privately owned. Chaos. Absolute chaos. Didn't Mexico try this fairly recently?

Infra doesn't necessarily need to be centralised if by centralised you mean government run
It can be licenced and properly controlled, our regulators are generally useless however
There is no indication government controlled water would be better, in fact history tells us the opposite
The issue with water, for example, was lack of thought. So the shareholders stripped the assets and debt leveraged the businesses plus no proper government control over the effluent etc
The problem with government controlled is they become political, eg maybe cheap energy for the poorest, or free for pensioners, vote winning type policies...

Where something is a natural monopoly you need controls if you privatise and cannot generate competition, even if that is artificial

 

[Dis86]

Great for shareholders, but for customers? Are we currently living in the promised land of low bills and exceptional service?

No, no we are not.

Case in point: I challenge you to get through to British Gas's customer services. I'll give you a week. No, I'll be fair. 6 months. Try to reach BG's customer services in 6 months... I'm not even sure they exist..

We have ridiculous bills because the public sector (OFGEN) isn't doing its job but if you or I as private citizens try to do something about the crap state of service from BG we are penalised.

 

[FoxEye]

Infra doesn't necessarily need to be centralised if by centralised you mean government run
It can be licenced and properly controlled, our regulators are generally useless however
There is no indication government controlled water would be better, in fact history tells us the opposite
The issue with water, for example, was lack of thought. So the shareholders stripped the assets and debt leveraged the businesses plus no proper government control over the effluent etc
The problem with government controlled is they become political, eg maybe cheap energy for the poorest, or free for pensioners, vote winning type policies...

Where something is a natural monopoly you need controls if you privatise and cannot generate competition, even if that is artificial

But we konw that in private hands the operators will continually be looking to find loopholes to, let's be frank, degrade the service and increase the cost to bill payers.

That's what private sector does. The motivation for private companies is always profits. It's like fighting against nature itself.

In the hands of the public sector the only real limiting factor is penny-pinching politicians who choose to under-fund. But by all accounts the people (read engineers) who ran our public water companies were not lazy or incompetent, they just couldn't work miracles with years of zero investment.

The "solution" to the lack of investment was to sell the assets to the private sector, because the government still didn't want to fund them properly. The private sector were thus handed a monopoly, and began to do with the private sector always does: maximise profits. With entirely predictable outcomes. Providing a service is secondary, and you only provide a better service when that will improve profits. Otherwise you milk those assets for all they're worth, doing as little as possible. Your only concern is your shareholders.

It's like we've got evidence of all of this, but continue to draw the wrong conclusions time after time. The private sector only cares about profits. That is literally all.

 

[FoxEye]

We have ridiculous bills because the public sector (OFGEN) isn't doing its job but if you or I as private citizens try to do something about the crap state of service from BG we are penalised.

But we don't need OFGEN! They are public sector and we can scrap all that! Let BG run the service the way it wants! Private companies don't need state interference! You said so yourself...

 

[Dis86]

But we don't need OFGEN! They are public sector and we can scrap all that! Let BG run the service the way it wants! Private companies don't need state interference! You said so yourself...

Yes. When the state keeps its mitts out and the public are free to choose it does work. The problem is we are not free to choose because of government interference. Government legislation stymies new companies coming in to the fold as it is protectionist of massive corporations right now, largely through terrible tax regulation.