Clearly the answer to all our woes. A private company that charges at cost? Immagine what your enery bills might look like now? (God bless Maggie Thatcher) Food manufacturers who do similar and have their profit guaranteed (so we pay cheap prices?) yeah right...
Nationalisation
- Thread starter Warbler
- Start date
A company whos costs run out of control because there is no pressure from shareholders and no market competition to reign in excesses and produce value
there is no accountability except to a goverment who will as often as not, take decisions based on politics rather than any concept of service and value
How long did it used to take the nationalised post office to install a Phone?
A Nationlised provider would absolutely no influence at all on world energy prices. The old nationlised companies would have been overstuffed with do nothing heavily unionised staff, dated working practices (because there was no incentive to improve) and probably technology too. And all this subsidised by the taxpayer.
there is no accountability except to a goverment who will as often as not, take decisions based on politics rather than any concept of service and value
How long did it used to take the nationalised post office to install a Phone?
A Nationlised provider would absolutely no influence at all on world energy prices. The old nationlised companies would have been overstuffed with do nothing heavily unionised staff, dated working practices (because there was no incentive to improve) and probably technology too. And all this subsidised by the taxpayer.
I've just heard the arch nationaliser on the radio, telling everyone that he's cancelled his meetings today to monitor the markets from Washington. So no need for alarm then. Bush is on the case.
Not entirely sure what company your describing there Clive? There's no shortage of private companies who appear to fit that profile.
Again I'm not concerned about the accountability issue. In fact I'd rather have decisions made dependent on government rather than profit. Indeed, you could argue that government being accountable to the electorate ultimately makes the business accountable to us. Accountability to shareholders merely means dividend, which is of course generated by profiteering. Oil prices fall, petrol prices remain at about £1.15. A company that lets its costs get out of control, merely passes those costs onto us. Car insurance is a classic example. It used to be three times cheaper in Germany, and they had three times the number of accidents (don't know if this is the case any longer in truth).
As regards the phone issue, I was hoping Colin Phillips might wish to take the bait and tell us about how the privatised BT have dealt with him. I've spent over an hour before now listening to loop of Thunderclap Newman telling me there's something in the air, whilst trying to get through to a privatised Talk Talk, (I gave up in the end). That's not service by anyone's standards.
A nationalised industry would have no say on the purchase price of energy, that I accept. It would however, be able to dictate what price it charged its customers. It's one of the reason why Chinese prices are so low, even though they pay the same as everyone else to buy the stuff. You might argue that this has an environmental impact, as they tend togenerate a lot of unnecessary domestic use? I think you'd be right, but ultimately profit shouldn't be the final arbitor in everything. I do believe there are social outputs which we need to place a value on as a society and would have no problem subsidising certain staples in order to protect the vulnerable. Doubtless we will see old people dying again this winter because they can't afford to heat their homes. Mind you perhaps they should go into a private sector home to be abused and looked after by an army of minimum wage eastern Europeans whilst the owner charges a fortune for the care and rips their savings and house from underneath them.
Childcare would be another example where I'd be happy to have a nationalised provision. The costs of private sector childcare are horrific, and it would have the additional benefit of releasing resource into the economy instead of having to pay mothers who can't afford private sector provision to stay at home.
The utilities I was never comfortable about privatising, and all I can see in truth is inefficient private cartels carving up the market and fixing prices with a sabre toothed poodle regulating them. Similarly, I was never comfortable with the strategic loss of our coal industry. In truth things like ship building and car manufacture are different, in so far as the products weren't competitive and they weren't necessarily quite so strategic to the country, nor did they have the same social output.
I'd happily have a nationalised fuel retailer and subsidise them to a level, or run them close to break even in order to keep provision affordable. Similarly I'd do the same for care industries, and energy and water supply. The private sector has had water now for over ten years and 30% of our resevoir stocks never gets to the taps, yet they still make huge profits and pay massive dividend. The issue of so-called train operating companies really doesn't need a comment. I can't detect any improvement, the only thing I've seen is more accidents and corners cut in safety in order to increase profit
Not entirely sure what company your describing there Clive? There's no shortage of private companies who appear to fit that profile.
Again I'm not concerned about the accountability issue. In fact I'd rather have decisions made dependent on government rather than profit. Indeed, you could argue that government being accountable to the electorate ultimately makes the business accountable to us. Accountability to shareholders merely means dividend, which is of course generated by profiteering. Oil prices fall, petrol prices remain at about £1.15. A company that lets its costs get out of control, merely passes those costs onto us. Car insurance is a classic example. It used to be three times cheaper in Germany, and they had three times the number of accidents (don't know if this is the case any longer in truth).
As regards the phone issue, I was hoping Colin Phillips might wish to take the bait and tell us about how the privatised BT have dealt with him. I've spent over an hour before now listening to loop of Thunderclap Newman telling me there's something in the air, whilst trying to get through to a privatised Talk Talk, (I gave up in the end). That's not service by anyone's standards.
A nationalised industry would have no say on the purchase price of energy, that I accept. It would however, be able to dictate what price it charged its customers. It's one of the reason why Chinese prices are so low, even though they pay the same as everyone else to buy the stuff. You might argue that this has an environmental impact, as they tend togenerate a lot of unnecessary domestic use? I think you'd be right, but ultimately profit shouldn't be the final arbitor in everything. I do believe there are social outputs which we need to place a value on as a society and would have no problem subsidising certain staples in order to protect the vulnerable. Doubtless we will see old people dying again this winter because they can't afford to heat their homes. Mind you perhaps they should go into a private sector home to be abused and looked after by an army of minimum wage eastern Europeans whilst the owner charges a fortune for the care and rips their savings and house from underneath them.
Childcare would be another example where I'd be happy to have a nationalised provision. The costs of private sector childcare are horrific, and it would have the additional benefit of releasing resource into the economy instead of having to pay mothers who can't afford private sector provision to stay at home.
The utilities I was never comfortable about privatising, and all I can see in truth is inefficient private cartels carving up the market and fixing prices with a sabre toothed poodle regulating them. Similarly, I was never comfortable with the strategic loss of our coal industry. In truth things like ship building and car manufacture are different, in so far as the products weren't competitive and they weren't necessarily quite so strategic to the country, nor did they have the same social output.
I'd happily have a nationalised fuel retailer and subsidise them to a level, or run them close to break even in order to keep provision affordable. Similarly I'd do the same for care industries, and energy and water supply. The private sector has had water now for over ten years and 30% of our resevoir stocks never gets to the taps, yet they still make huge profits and pay massive dividend. The issue of so-called train operating companies really doesn't need a comment. I can't detect any improvement, the only thing I've seen is more accidents and corners cut in safety in order to increase profit
simmo
Senior Jockey
Whilst I agree with the sentiment of Warblers suggestion, I fear that clive's vision would be the result of such an action, as was the case previously and is still visible in local councils across the country.
I'd rather have poor service in a privatised industry where I can choose to take my money elsewhere, than a nationalised one where all I can do is moan a bit and vote once every 4/5 years.
I am also not convinced that we actually would receive the product any cheaper. Any gains through removal of profiteering would swiftly be swallowed up by lazy unionised workers who want an above national average pay for less than a days work.
I'd rather have poor service in a privatised industry where I can choose to take my money elsewhere, than a nationalised one where all I can do is moan a bit and vote once every 4/5 years.
I am also not convinced that we actually would receive the product any cheaper. Any gains through removal of profiteering would swiftly be swallowed up by lazy unionised workers who want an above national average pay for less than a days work.
Agree simmo
No it doesnt warbler. Thats why we have competion. Naturally it can only do that in a monopolistic enviroment.
There are enough petrol providers to probably ensure that the market is operating but should also be remebered that the prices we are paying now are a reflection of oil bought at future spot prices months ago.
No no no
Prices are also comparitively very low in the US too
Why?
TAX
Nothing to do with the commodity pricing
No it doesnt warbler. Thats why we have competion. Naturally it can only do that in a monopolistic enviroment.
There are enough petrol providers to probably ensure that the market is operating but should also be remebered that the prices we are paying now are a reflection of oil bought at future spot prices months ago.
No no no
Prices are also comparitively very low in the US too
Why?
TAX
Nothing to do with the commodity pricing
Where as there's no shortage of shite councils across the country (Gods sake I work for one of the worst, or should that be complacent) but one of the reasons things have got expensive (quite apart from starvation from the government in terms of their annual spending assessment) is the private sector.
Few frontline services are delivered by the council anymore, which has given carte-blanche for sharp operators to lock less than astute councils into contracts and move the costs about. The other thing that has mushroomed in recent times is the growth of the private sector consultant. Personally I think this is a convenient way of management abrogating their responsibility for a decision. That is to say if I recommend something, and my manager adopts it, we become responsible. If a consultant does the same, the manager blames the consultant, and for what ever reason, this seems to be accepted as an excuse? "The consultant recommended it though".... "oh well that's ago then" etc
Classic example yesterday. I get paid something like £15.50 an hour (public money so don't mind telling people). I produce an all singing scoped out document for the regeneration of a part of the city. All costed, all justified up, all worked through, and accompanied by a series actions necessary to achieve the outcomes. Took me about 3 and half weeks (75 pages). Presented to manager and earns a degree of approval. But this is the catch 22. The next part of the process concerns a decision!!!! whose going to press the button and say lets be brave and try and do it??? No one. Instead they bring in a consultant on anything between £50 to £75 an hour. The consultant spends 3 months on the case and ultimately takes my plan and pretty well copies it before submitting his invoice and riding off into the sunset with his saddle bags loaded with filthy lucre.
The exercise has served its purpose though, becaus the private sector spectator has agreed with me, so it must be right. The manager now has his lightening conductor, and the people get to pay for it. Cute. It's often said that a consultant 'will borrow your watch, to tell you the time'. With few exceptions, this has been my experience.
I'll lay this challenge down to all of you, as it's a simple freedom of information request and can't be denied to any of you. Enquire of your local authority how much money they spent last year on private sector consultants. Some of you will be horrified.
Competition does have to fetch prices down Clive, the idea that its the exclusive domain of a monopolistic environment isn't true. Cartels have been price fixing for years. Bank charges is one that comes to mind.
Profit shouldn't the arbitor of production, or there should be a thing called 'social profit' where the outcome is one social responsibility. A nationalised company can exist alongside a private company (well it used to until the capitalist club of the EU prevented price rigging in defence of poorer people).
The oil spot price started falling about 2 months ago but hasn't been recipricated at the pumps yet. I'll accept that the fact that you buy it dollars and the recent exchange rates movements haven't helped, but a suspicion remains that everyone's quite happy to over-charge.
To swing it into anarchist theory, the only cost of production is labour.
Profit shouldn't the arbitor of production, or there should be a thing called 'social profit' where the outcome is one social responsibility. A nationalised company can exist alongside a private company (well it used to until the capitalist club of the EU prevented price rigging in defence of poorer people).
The oil spot price started falling about 2 months ago but hasn't been recipricated at the pumps yet. I'll accept that the fact that you buy it dollars and the recent exchange rates movements haven't helped, but a suspicion remains that everyone's quite happy to over-charge.
To swing it into anarchist theory, the only cost of production is labour.
Colin Phillips
At the Start
Warbs, I thought people might be fed up with my rants about BT.
Having spent 26 years working first for the NCB and then British Coal I can hardly advocate Nationalization.
Too many chiefs, not enough indians, much like the Health Service is these days.
I would also agree that there is a lack of accountability, just look at the BBC.
Having spent 26 years working first for the NCB and then British Coal I can hardly advocate Nationalization.
Too many chiefs, not enough indians, much like the Health Service is these days.
I would also agree that there is a lack of accountability, just look at the BBC.
And who hires these people?
The responsibility to not be ripped off is with the hirer, not the provider!
Which are countered by competitive interest rates. Im not so sure that this was a case of a cartel (there are simply too many available banks to operate as such) as a lack of transparency
But the actual fact is one thing, the intention is another
In this country with we have legislation to at least attempt to stop monopolistic situations. In the US the anti trust laws are extremely tough.
So what would have been the motivation for all those entrepeneurs who have changed our lives? Ford? Gates? Wright brothers?
Would they have risked all for some "social profit"?
Irish Stamp
Forum Moderator
There was once a country like that Warbs - well a few, but we decided that supply and demand (we supply food and demand wedges of cash for it) was a much better way to go
betsmate
At the Start
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2004
- Messages
- 5,752
"The Achilles heel of socialism was the inability to link the socialist goal with the provision of incentives for efficient labour and the encouragement of initiative on the part of individuals. It became clear in practice that a market provides such incentives best of all"
M
martin
Guest
That quote is as good as it gets. The Old Soviet Union must be a good example of a far left regime. They couldn't use business and enterprise to provide jobs, therefore they can't get sufficient funds from taxes to fund the regeneration of the country that all major countries have to partake in, therefore they go bust. However, at least they believed in what they were doing, and look at them now, enough oil and gas to sink the rest of the world at a moments notice! Perhaps being a slow learner in terms of capatalism (although causing a lot of short term pain in the process) will help them in the long term, but these things probably happen in cycles and this is a particulary vicous one we're in now.
Last edited:
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
Of course, the wealth that is produced by massive Russian oil and gas reserves is in the pockets of a mere handful of gangsters (quaintly refered to as 'oligarchs' to avoid offence), and the country is collectively cabbaged as a result of the complete and utter failure of the State to share the wealth.
But let's not let the details of such tawdry larceny get in the way of a good 'free market' story.
But let's not let the details of such tawdry larceny get in the way of a good 'free market' story.
M
martin
Guest
If you want to point score about "free markets" then thats up to you. First paragraph of wikipedia on Russian growth sums up what i'm saying.
"Russia is a unique emerging market, in the sense that being the nucleus of a former superpower shows more anomalies. On one hand, its exports are primarily resource based, and on the other, it has a pool of technical talent in aerospace, nuclear engineering, and basic sciences. How this peculiar emerging market integrates itself into the world economy over the coming decade is a story as significant in today's world as the reemergence of China and India.:
They just happen to have a government intent on running the oil men out aswell! I wonder if Boris ..................... is Al Capone reincarnated!
"Russia is a unique emerging market, in the sense that being the nucleus of a former superpower shows more anomalies. On one hand, its exports are primarily resource based, and on the other, it has a pool of technical talent in aerospace, nuclear engineering, and basic sciences. How this peculiar emerging market integrates itself into the world economy over the coming decade is a story as significant in today's world as the reemergence of China and India.:
They just happen to have a government intent on running the oil men out aswell! I wonder if Boris ..................... is Al Capone reincarnated!
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
Martin, the debate has been about whether the 'consumer' is ultimately better served by nationalised industries, or the free market.
My point was not about scoring one, but rather to suggest that it is rarely as black-and-white as that, and I used the Russian oil/gas situation as an example of a hard-core free-market gone wrong - where wholesale 'consumers' are almost literally held at gun-point, to pay the prices demanded by the few who control what should be State assets.
Such price hikes are then passed onto the retail 'consumers' by the wholesale 'consumers', with the end result that everyone is fucked-over, esxcept for the two dozen henchmen that run Gazprom and the various other Russian utilities.
The Russian citizens do not benefit from the vast natural resources at the country's disposal, and the end-user pays over-the-odds for access to the resource.
Like I say - a free-market gone crazy, and in comparison with even the worst of the excesses of the 1970's UK nationalised industries, even more repellent. IMO, of course.
A more contemporary and local example would perhaps be the cartel which controlled flight-charges for years. Despite being the bitterest of enemies, the wholly-privatised BA and Virgin Atlantic were quite happy to share a bed, so long as it meant they could collectively ram it up Joe Public.
My point was not about scoring one, but rather to suggest that it is rarely as black-and-white as that, and I used the Russian oil/gas situation as an example of a hard-core free-market gone wrong - where wholesale 'consumers' are almost literally held at gun-point, to pay the prices demanded by the few who control what should be State assets.
Such price hikes are then passed onto the retail 'consumers' by the wholesale 'consumers', with the end result that everyone is fucked-over, esxcept for the two dozen henchmen that run Gazprom and the various other Russian utilities.
The Russian citizens do not benefit from the vast natural resources at the country's disposal, and the end-user pays over-the-odds for access to the resource.
Like I say - a free-market gone crazy, and in comparison with even the worst of the excesses of the 1970's UK nationalised industries, even more repellent. IMO, of course.
A more contemporary and local example would perhaps be the cartel which controlled flight-charges for years. Despite being the bitterest of enemies, the wholly-privatised BA and Virgin Atlantic were quite happy to share a bed, so long as it meant they could collectively ram it up Joe Public.
oh come on now. Flights have been cheaper than ever. And other airlines can get started and compete (as they have done). Airlines frequently go bust becase it is a highly competitve market. Maybe theres been some poor stuff with slots and so on but united and american also flyto the same us destinations as Virgin and BA and given their financial woes were clearly not ripping customers off
M
martin
Guest
Apologies for that. To answer the question of the debate, I think we'll find out in grand fashion in the next few years.
I suppose the word "free" has a price aswell.
Last edited:
This would be the same old Soviet Union who were a war shattered economy in 1917, wiho had a largely agrian economy and no industrial base, and had to endure a western sponsored civil war in the early 20's and were yet again, set upon by a capitlaist nation (Nazi Germany) who emerged as a so called super powe, 40 year later. That's quite an achievement? of course there were a lot of horrific sacrifices along the way, but there always has been with any rapid indusutrilisation. Would we have won the second world war without them?
I'll try and come back to your tax argument later. But ask yourself this. Why is tax necessary? who invented it? and why?
I could spare you the answer. It was a temporary levy by the whigs to fight imperialist wars against Napoleon. Perhaps you'd be so good as to write to the HM Treasury and remind them?
Who also "set upon" other capitilist nations too i seem to recall. i think there was a huge difference between the way the Nazi econonmy was orchestrated and those of democratic liberal states
Dismissing the millions of those killed who dared to, or even were perecived to, have dissented killed as just casulties of industriliastion is going to far IMO
Did they come to our aid? I dont think so. The defeat of the nazis by the west was helped by the incursions into russia but russia didnt fight to save us. They fought to save themselves (and with half an eye on annexing east europe into their miserable system too no doubt)
Last edited:
M
martin
Guest
Warbler. I'm trying to get the jist of what your saying.
What I would say is most big national governments in principal are now "for the people and by the people". Gone are the days of Hitler, or some would say even Thatcher, where certain segments of society were persecuted (even African leaders like Mugabe are slowly on their way out). Look at Putin and the current Russian president, always fighting for Russian interests, especially abroad, almost taking a Blairite position on foreign policy. A right wing republican president in George Bush portays himself to be everything to every man - you get the sense that his policy direction, especially in terms of nationalsing the two big mortgage holders, is much more hospidable to ordinary people. I get the feeling we're in a poker game where all the leaders are pretending their whiter than white and never bluff!
I wrote a much bigger piece which unfortuantely got wiped out in cyber space, so the above is all I was lucky enough to have copied.
What I would say is most big national governments in principal are now "for the people and by the people". Gone are the days of Hitler, or some would say even Thatcher, where certain segments of society were persecuted (even African leaders like Mugabe are slowly on their way out). Look at Putin and the current Russian president, always fighting for Russian interests, especially abroad, almost taking a Blairite position on foreign policy. A right wing republican president in George Bush portays himself to be everything to every man - you get the sense that his policy direction, especially in terms of nationalsing the two big mortgage holders, is much more hospidable to ordinary people. I get the feeling we're in a poker game where all the leaders are pretending their whiter than white and never bluff!
I wrote a much bigger piece which unfortuantely got wiped out in cyber space, so the above is all I was lucky enough to have copied.
Last edited:
simmo
Senior Jockey
"The private sector is to blame for council inefficiency". What clive said. And also have a look at the number of times state paid workers go out on strike for pay rises when they already earn far in excess of that paid to private sector workers.
What is that stat that is thrown about on here fairly regularly? 40% of the workforce in Britain is employed by the state or something like that? And the national average wage is £21k?
I've just had a quick look at a variety of state providing services recruitment pages. Bear in mind that these services are being provided in Glasgow, one of the parts of Britain where labour costs are at their cheapest.
A whopping 85% of available positions are paid at a rate over the national average wage. Fuck me blue with a stick!
I reckon the average wage I saw in my perusal was about 28k. Ignoring the fact that I looked at a poorly paid area for a second, that means that in order for the national average wage to be £21k, the national average wage of private sector workers must actually be £16.3k.
Add in that I know from personal experience that BT pays it's pre-privatisation workers considerably more than it pays newly employed staff and I'd bet good money that this also applies to other privatised industries.
And you want to create more of this?
I say, sort out your greedy, grasping workforce and then we can discuss it.
What is that stat that is thrown about on here fairly regularly? 40% of the workforce in Britain is employed by the state or something like that? And the national average wage is £21k?
I've just had a quick look at a variety of state providing services recruitment pages. Bear in mind that these services are being provided in Glasgow, one of the parts of Britain where labour costs are at their cheapest.
A whopping 85% of available positions are paid at a rate over the national average wage. Fuck me blue with a stick!
I reckon the average wage I saw in my perusal was about 28k. Ignoring the fact that I looked at a poorly paid area for a second, that means that in order for the national average wage to be £21k, the national average wage of private sector workers must actually be £16.3k.
Add in that I know from personal experience that BT pays it's pre-privatisation workers considerably more than it pays newly employed staff and I'd bet good money that this also applies to other privatised industries.
And you want to create more of this?
I say, sort out your greedy, grasping workforce and then we can discuss it.
Quite simply, Yes.
Why wouldn't I or anyone for that mater aspire to try and get the best for people. Can you not see that this silly jealousy thing so beloved by radio 5 phone ins is just an atempt to play worker off against worker instead of turning on the employer who can frequently be making massive profits.
Quite apart from that a lot of the rest of what you've written is too superficial and factually incorrect.
In the first case, only the better paid public sector jobs get advertised in the mass media due to the costs involved. People rarely place an ad for a school cleaner for instance, as it costs too much to justify. In any event, such employees are normally sourced very locally and there are more cost effective ways of reaching them. This will therefore inflate the alleged average salary.
The other point concerns respective pay. In the first case you need to remember that there is a vast wealth of very poorly paid private sector workers in significant industries such as retail, leisure, tourism etc Their contribution to the average shouldn't be over-looked. The public sector doesn't really have any such comparable category, and nothing on the same scale.
The average UK salary is £23,700
The average public sector salary £25,900
The average private sector salary £22,800
(of which a significant percentage is minimum wage entry level)
If you were to wipe those out the private sector salary is the larger. The public sector pays a tighter band, but has a broader bottom decile with greater protection. The private sector is of course more ruthless and pays a much wider band, with the top decile in particular pickign up whacking great bonuses (for often questionable levels of performance).
The private sector also provides pensions Clive, as they do share options and bonuses. The public sector isn't allowed to offer PRP.
Anyway returnign to the original. What I believe we're witnessing, witnessed, is the death of the unregulated free market philosophy. It is beocming apparent, given that AIG in particular couldn't under-write their banks debts, that had they gone bust, the whole system could have come tumbling down. It's almost ironic how the bastions of capitalism and promoters of it, came periously close to plunging into collapse with their hedge fund activities. As Marx observed, the system is essentially unstable if left to it's own devices and would eventually consume itself through greed. This is precisely what was happening, until such time as the governments of the world had to intervene to bail out their own private sectors, who'd done just that.
Capitalism lives on, but unadulterated free market capitalism has just died a death, and rather publicly too.
i think its worth remembering that we are just talking about financial institutions here. There are not the be all and end all of the free market by a very long chalk.
Businesses go bust all the time because of bad decision making and poor credit decisions. This is on a larger scale but its just bankers. Also the collapse of a bank is generated by a spiral of short selling and general panic which has often is an exaggerated (and self generated response) to poor results and still doesnt necessrily indicate a disaterous balance sheet
The "end of capitalism" would perhaps be when BP, Microsoft, Wal mart and General electric all suddenly go bust
Not going to happen
Businesses go bust all the time because of bad decision making and poor credit decisions. This is on a larger scale but its just bankers. Also the collapse of a bank is generated by a spiral of short selling and general panic which has often is an exaggerated (and self generated response) to poor results and still doesnt necessrily indicate a disaterous balance sheet
The "end of capitalism" would perhaps be when BP, Microsoft, Wal mart and General electric all suddenly go bust
Not going to happen