Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

biccat wrote:
People are more likely to do what is in their interest when they vote with their wallet (who do I want to pay to get the most for my money) than when they vote at the ballot. Mostly because private companies are more focused in what they do, but also because people are more cost-conscious when they have a personal stake in something.

I don't know, I've seen more than enough people make horrible financial decisions to question the notion that the injection of finance into the matter has no bearing on making decisions in one's interests; which is a vague concept to begin with.

If your point is that when monetary concerns are paramount, people are more likely to make decisions according to monetary concerns, then enjoy your tautology. I hear they go well with honey mustard.

And, further, having a personal stake in something isn't merely subject to the possession of a financial stake. When you're financially invested in a thing, you will most likely consider finance, when you aren't you are less likely to do so. But simply because a decision is cost-conscious does not indicate that it is good.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:And if the politicians don't do a good job, someone else gets voted in next time. The populous utilises it's veto and 'fires' the CEO of Government and brings in someone else.

Really? Or will the politicians in office use public money to convince the electorate that it's all the minority party's fault, and he should get another term?

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Service is not necessary to profit

Know why companies like WalMart are profitable? It's because they provide a good service that their customers find valuable.

Or look at one of the best examples in the US: FedEx & UPS vs. the U.S. Post Office.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:as already listed above, the national water services in the UK were privatised and no alternatives provided. They are effective monopolies of private corporate interest and nothing is done to stop them.

I'm not sure, but I assume it's similar to here in the states where regulations are so strong that it's almost impossible for a competitor to step up and provide an alternative.

The solution isn't more government involvement, the solution is less.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:You are stuck at the impasse of private companies being 'better' or 'more focused' when, as I've mentioned above, they are not striving at providing service, but at beating competitors and making the highest profit. Whilst that remains their priority, they cannot serve the people more effectively than a nationally owned and regulated national service.

Do you think you're stuck at the impasse of public companies being "better" when, as I've mentioned above, there's no metric by which they can be measured?

You keep saying that nationally owned and regulated businesses are better, but how? Do they provide faster service? Are they more receptive to customer demands? Do they get more money or better equipment when they do a good job?

I think I've said enough here. I'm not going to convince you otherwise, but hopefully you'll think about the issue some.

biccat wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:And if the politicians don't do a good job, someone else gets voted in next time. The populous utilises it's veto and 'fires' the CEO of Government and brings in someone else.

Really? Or will the politicians in office use public money to convince the electorate that it's all the minority party's fault, and he should get another term?

They'll certainly try, though that doesn't mean they'll succeed. There are no guarantees.

I'm surprised that you didn't know that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:
The solution isn't more government involvement, the solution is less.

You're assuming:

A: There is a problem.

B: Generalized solutions are things that exist.

I don't even know how this would work for the public - do taxes go up to cover it, or do we have to have an account with our local force, pay a yearly subscription fee? Crime Insurance? or do we get charged on a crime-by-crime basis?

Personally I've felt politicians should have to go to a school of politics.
Businessmen have to go to business school, doctors to medical school, engineers to an engineering school - so why do the people who run our countries have the ability to basically waltz in off the street and say 'I feel like being a politician today.'?
When a PM or President or whatever takes control they basically need to learn what they need to do in the office, partially on the fly.

If instead we had courses that these people would have to go on and graduate to even be able to run for each station, or type of station (so PM, upper cabinet ministers, etc, would have to sufficently pass with a major in Higher Politics or something.) I believe things would end up somewhat better run.

Erm, David cameron has a First in PPE from one of the finest universities on the planet...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Albatross, the idea of a 'state monopoly' is that the government serves the people and public industry serves the people as a whole rather than being turned to the notion of creating a profit.

Yes, and it's a noble idea. However, what typically happens is that such industries become huge and disproportionately powerful vested interests, ultimately answerable to their trade union memberships. That's kind of why a monopoly of ANY kind is usually bad. Choice is the thing - I care not who provides that choice, as long as its not made for me. I believe that the government should have more choice insofar as the delivery of public services is concerned, and that they should act to ensure that we, as consumers and service users have as much choice as is practically possible.

How do you, as an advocate of the free market...

Woah, there! I'm not one of these lunatic US libertarian types, y'know! I believe in a mixed economy, with the emphasis on choice, not monopoly. Choice is responsibility, responsibility is empowerment, empowerment is freedom.

...feel about your current water providing private company? If you are dissatisfied, would you take your business elsewhere? Because as a former 'customer' of South West Water, I found I had no choice in the provider of my drinking water, I had to give money to the one private interest in my area, which was at that time and likely still is, the most expensive water rate in the country... SWW argued that this was due to the rural nature of the Cornish countryside... Yet Scotland, which remained nationalised, had the lowest rates in the UK.

I honestly have no major problems with my water rates, but the point is that, no, there is not yet enough choice in terms of service providers. It's a work-in-progress. I'm OK with that. I'd rather have a narrow field of choice that 'shut up and get what you're given'.

I do not believe profit driven organisations should provide the basics of education,

What's wrong with wanting to pay for a better education for your kids if you can afford it?

health

Same again, plus, you're already using a private company for your healthcare; GP clinics are privately-owned.

water

I think we should be able to choose from a range of utility providers, not just the government provider.

law

Do you oppose private solicitors? I'm not being facetious here.

I know I said I was done, but just a quick question:

What about food? It's obviously pretty important. Shouldn't you advocate nationalization of farms, grocers, and everything in between?

Isn't the public interest more important than profit?

biccat wrote:
Isn't the public interest more important than profit?

I was unaware that anyone claimed they were in mutual opposition.

biccat wrote:...but hopefully you'll think about the issue some.

Will you?

biccat wrote:I know I said I was done, but just a quick question:

What about food? It's obviously pretty important. Shouldn't you advocate nationalization of farms, grocers, and everything in between?

Isn't the public interest more important than profit?

It is, actually, though like many things, it isn't a all or nothing situation. Staple foods aren't taxed and people of low means can get food stamps. We tend to make sure people get what they need to survive, but if you want something more exotic, like say a sausage on a stick dipped in chocolate chip pancake batter, you are on your own.

Albatross wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Albatross, the idea of a 'state monopoly' is that the government serves the people and public industry serves the people as a whole rather than being turned to the notion of creating a profit.

Yes, and it's a noble idea. However, what typically happens is that such industries become huge and disproportionately powerful vested interests, ultimately answerable to their trade union memberships. That's kind of why a monopoly of ANY kind is usually bad. Choice is the thing - I care not who provides that choice, as long as its not made for me. I believe that the government should have more choice insofar as the delivery of public services is concerned, and that they should act to ensure that we, as consumers and service users have as much choice as is practically possible.

I have no objections to private versions of industries existing alongside the state ones, but I want and expect national services providing the basics. It is a noble idea, so why not work towards it. I am working currently in US retail, I have worked previously in UK NHS and Social Services. I have very real experience of both extremes of the spectrum and I know which one is the preferable, as an employee of a large multinational retailer, you're worth nothing and treated like dirt. With the current economic climate, it's even worse. Unionisation is not evil, Albatross, it is the abuse of unionisation that is evil. It's all about who gets into positions of authority and how they behave. I was 3 years old when the Winter of Discontent hit the UK, I don't remember it but I have studied it, along with the 3 day week. I understand how unions grown too powerful and unchecked can damage production and industry... in marked contrast, I see here, on a daily basis, how workers are abused without the legislative protection of unions. I watched someone get fired on a store manager's whim a few days ago. I have seen my company scrap all incentive bonuses overnight without consultation. When I joined up, I was made to watch a video about the evils of unions and how to report someone I might suspect of belonging to a union. It was all a bit Weyland/Yutani.

Albatross wrote:

How do you, as an advocate of the free market...

Woah, there! I'm not one of these lunatic US libertarian types, y'know! I believe in a mixed economy, with the emphasis on choice, not monopoly. Choice is responsibility, responsibility is empowerment, empowerment is freedom.

...feel about your current water providing private company? If you are dissatisfied, would you take your business elsewhere? Because as a former 'customer' of South West Water, I found I had no choice in the provider of my drinking water, I had to give money to the one private interest in my area, which was at that time and likely still is, the most expensive water rate in the country... SWW argued that this was due to the rural nature of the Cornish countryside... Yet Scotland, which remained nationalised, had the lowest rates in the UK.

I honestly have no major problems with my water rates, but the point is that, no, there is not yet enough choice in terms of service providers. It's a work-in-progress. I'm OK with that. I'd rather have a narrow field of choice that 'shut up and get what you're given'.

Mate, if you live in the UK, that's all you get. You don't have a choice of water company, only the one for your area, at least that was the case where I lived. South West Water or no water. If there is only one option, then far better it's a nationalised one rather than a private company that can charge as it likes. As to competition, we've seen how that works with the gas and electric companies, they price fix and come to mutual agreement to hold prices high. Look at gas ffs, they're increasing prices (or, again were when I was back in the UK) despite the world gas production reaching a glut and Russia producing an excess of more than the UK uses in a year within a month!

Albatross wrote:

I do not believe profit driven organisations should provide the basics of education,

What's wrong with wanting to pay for a better education for your kids if you can afford it?

I did say 'basics'... I believe the state should provide good education for as long as the individual needs it, means tested. That does not include learning Klingon or 'media studies'... I'm talking science, languages, engineering etc.

Albatross wrote:

health

Same again, plus, you're already using a private company for your healthcare; GP clinics are privately-owned.

Indeed they are, and again, I am a free market socialist, I think private industry can work with state owned industry, but again, the basics should be state owned and available to everyone, regardless of income. Health, education, protection, food and shelter should be enjoyed by all productive citizens of the state at the ground level.
Let's consider how many dentists, educated and funded through the NHS, turned tail and became private... now that cost us some money! Instead make em sign a contract, we elevate them and then they give us 10 years as a NHS dentist, they can go play golf and see who they please and charge what they want after they give the state 10 years of decent work.

Albatross wrote:

water

I think we should be able to choose from a range of utility providers, not just the government provider.

As I said above, you have no choice of private firm atm in the UK (as far as I'm aware) and that's a corporate monopoly. Far better to have a state owned facility. If a true 'free market' existed, then perhaps that would be an even better choice, but as we saw with energy companies, they don't compete to give us cheaper energy, they meet around a dinner table and decide what the cost will be so they all line their pockets.

Albatross wrote:

law

Do you oppose private solicitors? I'm not being facetious here.

Joey wrote:That looks to me like an explicitly liberal website.

Yeah, one that is not all gung-ho that privatization is always bad. How terrible of them.

Wait, shouldn;t they be biased the other way then? I'm so confused.