Privatisation! whats the point?

zing zong

was reading in the Irish Times today about the speed cameras being rolled out which will be run by a private company.

and that Cork Council have handed over the refuse service to a private company, stating it would save money.

granted these are only two instances out of many, but what I want to know is what is the point?

both local and national government are supposed to provide services that would be of best value to the tax payer. when the state provides a service, it has to cover the running costs, and pay the workers wages. when a private company provides a service, it has to cover the very same costs and make a profit on top of that, which the tax payer must now pay for.

so how in the hell is this of any benefit to tax payers?

mgmt

LOL Karl Marx 101

Iwasfrozen

zing zong wrote: »

was reading in the Irish Times today about the speed cameras being rolled out which will be run by a private company.

and that Cork Council have handed over the refuse service to a private company, stating it would save money.

granted these are only two instances out of many, but what I want to know is what is the point?

both local and national government are supposed to provide services that would be of best value to the tax payer. when the state provides a service, it has to cover the running costs, and pay the workers wages. when a private company provides a service, it has to cover the very same costs and make a profit on top of that, which the tax payer must now pay for.

so how in the hell is this of any benefit to tax payers?

Private companies are more likely to tell unions where to go.

Bumder

It would work out cheaper because if the state was running it, it would be overstaffed, have over paid workers, only work for about 4 months a year and most likely have second to none remuneration and pension entitlements.

wiseguy

zing zong wrote: »

so how in the hell is this of any benefit to tax payers?

Private companies have an incentive to do their job and can be held responsible

Government and state controlled bureaucracies don't as illustrated by our incompetent system with no heads rolling

Choose your evil

deise go deo

Private enterprise tends to be more efficent than state run services, I doubt the tax payer will lose out in these cases.

Max Power1

zing zong wrote: »

was reading in the Irish Times today about the speed cameras being rolled out which will be run by a private company.

and that Cork Council have handed over the refuse service to a private company, stating it would save money.

granted these are only two instances out of many, but what I want to know is what is the point?

both local and national government are supposed to provide services that would be of best value to the tax payer. when the state provides a service, it has to cover the running costs, and pay the workers wages. when a private company provides a service, it has to cover the very same costs and make a profit on top of that, which the tax payer must now pay for.

so how in the hell is this of any benefit to tax payers?

No unions, no ridiculously high PS salaries would help!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

monkeypants

The difference would be in the wages paid to the regular workers collecting the rubbish.

OhNoYouDidn't

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

They do in their holes.

But I think the actual point here is that do 'cost savings', which happen when you replace public workers with minimum wagers, accruing short term mean an improvement in service provision from the private sphere.

And experience in Ireland and the UK is most certainly no.

Its another one of these ideoligical pipe dreams that doesn't work in reality.

Het-Field

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

They do in their holes.

But I think the actual point here is that do 'cost savings', which happen when you replace public workers with minimum wagers, accruing short term mean an improvement in service provision from the private sphere.

And experience in Ireland and the UK is most certainly no.

Its another one of these ideoligical pipe dreams that doesn't work in reality.

Wrong and ridiculous.

Using Eircom and British Rail as examples of "failed privitisation" have been around for years. It doesnt make the claim correct. Private operators in the UK have turned the London Bus service into the envy of the world. It is a prime example of how sensible privitisation can enhance public services, and ensure that all paties who wish to enter the market are entitled to compete. If they fail to compete, they fail altogether.

I would like to point out that South Dublin County Council has a monopoly on waste management. For the first three weeks of August, I was left without my refuse being collected. If I could have switched my service to Panda, both my neighbours and I would have been able to prevent our neighbourhood resembling Calcutta. Unfortunatly, that is not an option. Equally, thanks to CIE being a public company, with a bolshy Union at their backs, integrated ticketing will hardly become a reality as they pathetically fight over which service will get the highest percentage of the profits. Public services provided only by taxpayer money, and are not open to competition ARE BAD. They are rationalised, and they are not benchmarked.

OhNoYouDidn't

Het-Field wrote: »

Wrong and ridiculous.

Using Eircom and British Rail as examples of "failed privitisation" have been around for years. It doesnt make the claim correct. Private operators in the UK have turned the London Bus service into the envy of the world. It is a prime example of how sensible privitisation can enhance public services, and ensure that all paties who wish to enter the market are entitled to compete. If they fail to compete, they fail altogether.

I would like to point out that South Dublin County Council has a monopoly on waste management. For the first three weeks of August, I was left without my refuse being collected. If I could have switched my service to Panda, both my neighbours and I would have been able to prevent our neighbourhood resembling Calcutta. Unfortunatly, that is not an option. Equally, thanks to CIE being a public company, with a bolshy Union at their backs, integrated ticketing will hardly become a reality as they pathetically fight over which service will get the highest percentage of the profits. Public services provided only by taxpayer money, and are not open to competition ARE BAD. They are rationalised, and they are not benchmarked.

You can't just dismiss eircom like that. They took a functioning public entity, sold it, and it became a non-functioning private entity and now our broadband provision is the worst in the OECD. That privatisation was an unmitigated failure.

How exactly would public transport in Ireland be improved by selling CIE? Name me one thing in Ireland that has been successfully privatised?

These little soundbites the right like to roll off have no actual bearing on reality.

zing zong

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

You can't just dismiss eircom like that. They took a functioning public entity, sold it, and it became a non-functioning private entity and now our broadband provision is the worst in the OECD. That privatisation was an unmitigated failure.

excellent point

zing zong

the jist of what most posters are saying is that if a service were privatised, it would work out cheaper because the workers are paid less, get less benefits etc.

but why are the government obliged, if they are, to pay more or give better benefits than private companies, surely they could employ people with contracts on par with private companies for doing the same work and providing the same service?? all the while not having to make a profit, and to just cover costs

OhNoYouDidn't

zing zong wrote: »

the jist of what most posters are saying is that if a service were privatised, it would work out cheaper because the workers are paid less, get less benefits etc.

but why are the government obliged, if they are, to pay more or give better benefits than private companies, surely they could employ people with contracts on par with private companies for doing the same work and providing the same service?? all the while not having to make a profit, and to just cover costs

Are you seriously arguing that the Government should join the race to the bottom and pay public sector staff minimum wage?

The jist of what I am saying is cheaper is rarely better, and I would prefer to pay a bit more for a service that works than have a functioning service hived off and run on exploitative lines privately just to save a small amount of money and appease a failed ideology.

deise go deo

zing zong wrote: »

the jist of what most posters are saying is that if a service were privatised, it would work out cheaper because the workers are paid less, get less benefits etc.

but why are the government obliged, if they are, to pay more or give better benefits than private companies, surely they could employ people with contracts on par with private companies for doing the same work and providing the same service?? all the while not having to make a profit, and to just cover costs

Because their hands are tied by the public service unions who would go on strike if they tried to.

Het-Field

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

You can't just dismiss eircom like that. They took a functioning public entity, sold it, and it became a non-functioning private entity and now our broadband provision is the worst in the OECD. That privatisation was an unmitigated failure.

How exactly would public transport in Ireland be improved by selling CIE? Name me one thing in Ireland that has been successfully privatised?

These little soundbites the right like to roll off have no actual bearing on reality.

The privitisation of Eircom has been a failure, to a certain extent. The fact that companies like Sky, and UPC have entered the market is a godsend. UPC provide stronger broadband then eircom ever could, and would have if it was a state run company. Companies like Vodafone have also proved to be profitable, and enjoy a large customer base thanks to the opening up of the market in 1999. Thank God for the sale of Eircell, it suits me and thousands of others down to the ground. I remain with eircom for my landline services, and the service they provide is fine. But at least I am not shelling out money on the provision of telecom services, which I can get from another operator of my choice.

The failure has come in that Eircom has been outstripped by several of it's competitors in the provision of mobile services, and broadband. But that is a dubious failure. No private company is entitled to be the most successful company of them all. In fact, it would suggest that the market has divded the wheat from the chaff. This is an answer to your second question. The free market has prevailed, and eircom are not capable of keeping up. Simple as that. The fact that shares are worthless doesnt mean squat to me, and those who have sold them, or never had them.

How would it improve public transport ? Well first off, bus men would not be entitled to ignore bus stops at will. Second, it would increase the number of public transport outlets on the busiest of routes. Third, it would increase the care the operator takes for it's vehicles. This would be beneficial to all passangers, as they would be aware of which operator is the one who pays most attention to their needs/ I dont mind a small subsidy for unprofitable routes. But the profitable routs should be available for private operatiors to ensure that rationalisation doesnt occur, and that by virtue of the monopoly, the employee can pick and choose how he wishes to run his service.

Ok, fine. Just ignore emperical evidence of what rationalised services have done. Call them soudbytes if you will. But your prejudices about Eircom are far more of a populist soundbyte, which is proffered by the lay-about lefties who are anxious to get this race to the bottom going.

OhNoYouDidn't

deise go deo wrote: »

Because their hands are tied by the public service unions who would go on strike if they tried to.

That and the fact that most people in the provision of public services are degree educated experts in their fields and its laughable to expect them to work for minimum wage.

Ring the tax office. Ring UPC. Then come back on here and tell us which conversation was cheap and nasty....

OhNoYouDidn't

Het-Field wrote: »

The privitisation of Eircom has been a failure, to a certain extent. The fact that companies like Sky, and UPC have entered the market is a godsend. UPC provide stronger broadband then eircom ever could, and would have if it was a state run company. Companies like Vodafone have also proved to be profitable, and enjoy a large customer base thanks to the opening up of the market in 1999. Thank God for the sale of Eircell, it suits me and thousands of others down to the ground. I remain with eircom for my landline services, and the service they provide is fine. But at least I am not shelling out money on the provision of telecom services, which I can get from another operator of my choice.

The failure has come in that Eircom has been outstripped by several of it's competitors in the provision of mobile services, and broadband. But that is a dubious failure. No private company is entitled to be the most successful company of them all. In fact, it would suggest that the market has divded the wheat from the chaff. This is an answer to your second question. The free market has prevailed, and eircom are not capable of keeping up. Simple as that. The fact that shares are worthless doesnt mean squat to me, and those who have sold them, or never had them.

The bit you are ignoring is that an ideological decision was taken to prohibit eircom from competing (remember the digicell debacle...) and then they were sold off and asset stripped.

It worked, businessmen friends of FF got involved, it is now a failure. You cannot ignore that link.

Het-Field wrote: »

How would it improve public transport ? Well first off, bus men would not be entitled to ignore bus stops at will. Second, it would increase the number of public transport outlets on the busiest of routes. Third, it would increase the care the operator takes for it's vehicles. This would be beneficial to all passangers, as they would be aware of which operator is the one who pays most attention to their needs/ I dont mind a small subsidy for unprofitable routes. But the profitable routs should be available for private operatiors to ensure that rationalisation doesnt occur, and that by virtue of the monopoly, the employee can pick and choose how he wishes to run his service..

thats not what I asked. There are a raft of private bus operators, some good, some bad. I asked HOW SELLING CIE would improve the public transport network.

Het-Field wrote: »

Ok, fine. Just ignore emperical evidence of what rationalised services have done. Call them soudbytes if you will. But your prejudices about Eircom are far more of a populist soundbyte, which is proffered by the lay-about lefties who are anxious to get this race to the bottom going.

What empirical evidence? You haven't provided any for me to ignore...

And accusing me of a race to the bottom!?!

mgmt

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

That and the fact that most people in the provision of public services are degree educated experts in their fields and its laughable to expect them to work for minimum wage.

Ring the tax office. Ring UPC. Then come back on here and tell us which conversation was cheap and nasty....

What degree does the civil servant who answers your phone in the tax office have?

kmick

Eircom.
In 1993 when we moved home Eircom promised to provide us with a functioning phone line in 9-11 months.
So lets put to bed once and for all the idea that eircom before privatisation was some sort of "super functional" company.

It was never a good company. Which is why I bought and sold my shares in it inside two weeks.

Het-Field

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

The bit you are ignoring is that an ideological decision was taken to prohibit eircom from competing (remember the digicell debacle...) and then they were sold off and asset stripped.

It worked, businessmen friends of FF got involved, it is now a failure. You cannot ignore that link.



thats not what I asked. There are a raft of private bus operators, some good, some bad. I asked HOW SELLING CIE would improve the public transport network.



What empirical evidence? You haven't provided any for me to ignore...

And accusing me of a race to the bottom!?!

So what ? TE was costing the taxpayer too much, and it was far too expensive. And as the poster above has mentioned, it was not a bastion of commercial effectiveness.At least Irish people can choose who they wish to use, and eircom are not allowed price fix, and must compete within the market (on telephone call charges at least), rather then be the market.

Ok. How would selling CIE Improve the service ? Well, first our public transport system would no longer be at the whim of a regressive Union, which os only interested in artifically inflating public wages.

Emperical evidence, well if you want to ask any of my neighbours who suffered for three weeks without their bins being collected by the sole operator (state run of course) then you will get some. Equally, just wait around any bus stop, and wait for a virtually empty bus to pass by (blatant waste of taxpayers money), or wait at a busy bus stop, and watch the bus driver ignore the waiting passangers, as he wants to finish his shift early.

Yes, it is a race to the bottom. Artifically inflating public wages is a NEGATIVE. Im aware that comrades like yourself are happy to have the ordinary Joe Soap stick his hand into his pockets to pay for wanton waste, but I certainly am not.

zing zong

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Are you seriously arguing that the Government should join the race to the bottom and pay public sector staff minimum wage?

not at all

most posters are saying that the privatised services are better because they pay less, give less benefits (i don't agree with this, but i understand their point)

in the example of the refuse service, the people that did work for the council, will more than likely go on to work in the newly privatised service,

so my point is, if the only reason that the service is being privatised is to save the taxpayer money (which is a farce, since after the service is privatised you now have to pay for the service YET your tax hasn't gone down) why not pay on par with the private sector? this would seem the most logical to me

BTW im not talking sweeping wage reductions across the board in the public sector, but in some areas i dont see why the pay should be any more or less than the private sector for the same work, would this stop the state selling everything off?

wiseguy

zing zong wrote: »

the jist of what most posters are saying is that if a service were privatised, it would work out cheaper because the workers are paid less, get less benefits etc.

but why are the government obliged, if they are, to pay more or give better benefits than private companies, surely they could employ people with contracts on par with private companies for doing the same work and providing the same service?? all the while not having to make a profit, and to just cover costs

Which part of "the Government is not capable of organizing a piss-up at a brewery" you have such a difficulty understanding

mgmt

YOUR tax money is going to pay for over inflated wages and inefficient services that could be better provided by the private industry. Why does our government have to be in the train, bus, airline, electricity, water, refuse, greyhound industries (bord na gcon) etc. All are mature enough to be fully in private hands.

OhNoYouDidn't

wiseguy wrote: »

Which part of "the Government is not capable of organizing a piss-up at a brewery" you have such a difficulty understanding

As opposed to the Irish commercial sector who are the best in the world? :rolleyes:

OhNoYouDidn't

mgmt wrote: »

YOUR tax money is going to pay for over inflated wages and inefficient services that could be better provided by the private industry. Why does our government have to be in the train, bus, airline, electricity, water, refuse, greyhound industries (bord na gcon) etc. All are mature enough to be fully in private hands.

Name me one successful privatisation in Ireland so far that would justify the strategic risk of selling these assets?

As for 'inefficient services', are you trying to tell me that there aren't piss poor private providers out there?

By all means, allow competition, but selling working state assets for the sake of it? No thanks

This deregulate everything economic phase has been and gone. It was a disaster. Some ideologues simply haven't copped onto this yet.

kmick

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

As opposed to the Irish commercial sector who are the best in the world? :rolleyes:

Commercial is better at getting value for money. End of story. More value = more profit. Anyone who has ever dealt with the government as a supplier of services will know that they dont demand value for money.

wiseguy

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

As opposed to the Irish commercial sector who are the best in the world? :rolleyes:

Whats wrong with the Irish commercial sector? maybe we should nationalize all companies and embrace our new socialist paradise on the Atlantic :rolleyes:
Hows that working out for Cuba?

zing zong

mgmt wrote: »

YOUR tax money is going to pay for over inflated wages and inefficient services that could be better provided by the private industry. Why does our government have to be in the train, bus, airline, electricity, water, refuse, greyhound industries (bord na gcon) etc. All are mature enough to be fully in private hands.

whatever about greyhound industries, and airlines and all the rest of the rubbish the state (now, not before) has no business being in, there are certain services, vital services, that should never be private, e.g. water, roads, prisons, education, health etc

wiseguy

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Name me one successful privatisation in Ireland so far that would justify the strategic risk of selling these assets?

As for 'inefficient services', are you trying to tell me that there aren't piss poor private providers out there?

By all means, allow competition, but selling working state assets for the sake of it? No thanks

This deregulate everything economic phase has been and gone. It was a disaster. Some ideologues simply haven't copped onto this yet.

Its funny to note that Eircom privatization was botched by unions and Labour lobbying

OhNoYouDidn't

wiseguy wrote: »

Whats wrong with the Irish commercial sector? maybe we should nationalize all companies and embrace our new socialist paradise on the Atlantic :rolleyes:
Hows that working out for Cuba?

I'm not talking about Cuba.

I'm talking about the Irish crony capitalist class that gave us Anglo, Irish Nationwide, Quinn Insurance etc.

After eircom and the last couple of years I do not trust this clique to run a bath, nevermind the water supply or electricity grid.

OhNoYouDidn't

wiseguy wrote: »

Its funny to note that Eircom privatization was botched by unions and Labour lobbying

Not Babcock and Brown?

Het-Field

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Name me one successful privatisation in Ireland so far that would justify the strategic risk of selling these assets?

As for 'inefficient services', are you trying to tell me that there aren't piss poor private providers out there?

By all means, allow competition, but selling working state assets for the sake of it? No thanks

This deregulate everything economic phase has been and gone. It was a disaster. Some ideologues simply haven't copped onto this yet.

While we are aware that there are "piss poor" private operators, I defy you to tell me that CIE, Telecom Eireann (when it was a state body) the ESB (highest Electricitiy prices around), and Aer Lingus (£700 Flights to Brussels in 1995) were top of the range operators.

Ireland and Fianna Fail have never bought into free markets, and competition. Bertie Ahern said so himself. The "deregulate everything" was never properly implemented in this jurisdiction. Thus it is farcical to suggest that it has been and gone.

OhNoYouDidn't

kmick wrote: »

Commercial is better at getting value for money. End of story. More value = more profit. Anyone who has ever dealt with the government as a supplier of services will know that they dont demand value for money.

But I don't want schools, hospitals, buses, water provision etc run for profit.

I want them run for the benefit of the end user. Which in some cases happens excellently in the public sphere, sometimes badly.

I see no evidence that the private sector, which lets remember went running to the state recently for a gazzilion euro bailout, can do these things better.

OhNoYouDidn't

Het-Field wrote: »

While we are aware that there are "piss poor" private operators, I defy you to tell me that CIE, Telecom Eireann (when it was a state body) the ESB (highest Electricitiy prices around), and Aer Lingus (£700 Flights to Brussels in 1995) were top of the range operators.

Not in the least. Lack of competition was the issue, not the fact the state were in the business.

Het-Field wrote: »

Ireland and Fianna Fail have never bought into free markets, and competition. Bertie Ahern said so himself. The "deregulate everything" was never properly implemented in this jurisdiction. Thus it is farcical to suggest that it has been and gone.

Globally. Reganomics has failed. Yet here you are arguing that we should give it one more go?!?

Selling the family silver to appease an ideology is not a good idea.

wiseguy

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I'm not talking about Cuba.

I'm talking about the Irish crony capitalist class that gave us Anglo, Irish Nationwide, Quinn Insurance etc.

After eircom and the last couple of years I do not trust this clique to run a bath, nevermind the water supply or electricity grid.

Yeh and under a proper capitalist system these would have been allowed to fail and eat own ****.

Instead the socialist mantra of bailouts at all costs was adopted, socializing the risks and all that...

BTW your socialist ideology also suffers from corruption and cronyism, except on an even bigger scale as the late USSR found out

padma

The best thing to do would be to stop speeding altogether. Problem solved, private company or not its a bill many couldn't afford nowadays.

kmick

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

But I don't want schools, hospitals, buses, water provision etc run for profit.

I want them run for the benefit of the end user. Which in some cases happens excellently in the public sphere, sometimes badly.

I see no evidence that the private sector, which lets remember went running to the state recently for a gazzilion euro bailout, can do these things better.

Schools hospitals etc - definitely need a not for profit ethos - we only need to look to the US to see why that is the case.

Anyone (example Aircoach) can run a bus.

Water Im undecided about but privatisiation would solve the issue of 50+% of the treated water flowing into the ground. After that I would be happy to pay for my fair share for clean water.

Every utility/company needs a seperate approach. I think what everyone agrees is on is that the state runs things poorly all across the spectrum because when you are using someone elses money its hard to give a crap.

OhNoYouDidn't

wiseguy wrote: »

Yeh and under a proper capitalist system these would have been allowed to fail and eat own ****.

Instead the socialist mantra of bailouts at all costs was adopted, socializing the risks and all that...

BTW your socialist ideology also suffers from corruption and cronyism, except on an even bigger scale as the late USSR found out

I don't have a socialist ideology ffs

But your faith that FF will hand over state assets to the best qualified to run them has no basis in reality. It has never happened so far, why would it happen today?

OhNoYouDidn't

kmick wrote: »

Schools hospitals etc - definitely need a not for profit ethos - we only need to look to the US to see why that is the case..

Agreed.

kmick wrote: »

Anyone (example Aircoach) can run a bus..

And they do. My point is we can have competition without selling CIE....

kmick wrote: »

Water Im undecided about but privatisiation would solve the issue of 50+% of the treated water flowing into the ground. After that I would be happy to pay for my fair share for clean water..

The loss of water issue is one of investment, which has bradly improved. I can't see how a private company can do it better without a huge increase in the cost to the end user.

kmick wrote: »

Every utility/company needs a seperate approach. I think what everyone agrees is on is that the state runs things poorly all across the spectrum because when you are using someone elses money its hard to give a crap.

I actually don't. I think the problem in Ireland is poor management, and thats not exclusive to the public sector.

Het-Field

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Not in the least. Lack of competition was the issue, not the fact the state were in the business.



Globally. Reganomics has failed. Yet here you are arguing that we should give it one more go?!?

Selling the family silver to appease an ideology is not a good idea.

Anybody who understands economics will know that "Reganomics" (a pejorative term for Free-Marketeering) never prevailed. Ask Alan Greenspan, and his chums at the ECB. Look at Governments which stoked the property boom through tax breaks (interference in the market, which is not consistent with "free marketeering". "Reganomics" never failed. In fact, Reganomics was never given a chance.

Ireland has little or no record of privitisation. So asking for examples of good privitisation are hard to come by, as most eminations of the state remain, wholly or partially, in the hands of the state.

OhNoYouDidn't

Het-Field wrote: »

Anybody who understands economics will know that "Reganomics" (a pejorative term for Free-Marketeering) never prevailed. Ask Alan Greenspan, and his chums at the ECB. Look at Governments which stoked the property boom through tax breaks (interference in the market, which is not consistent with "free marketeering". "Reganomics" never failed. In fact, Reganomics was never given a chance.

I understand it well enough - MA in Economics mate! Proper free market capitalism cannot happen because of elite networking and corruption that surrounds naked greed. But regardless of the semantics, you have to agree that an economic era ended when Lehmans collapsed and the banks had to be bailed out globally.

Het-Field wrote: »

Ireland has little or no record of privitisation. So asking for examples of good privitisation are hard to come by, as most eminations of the state remain, wholly or partially, in the hands of the state.

And there is a reason for that... There is no drive to privatise because:
a: service provision is generally good in the public space
b: private utility providers in Ireland are of a poor standard, especially in customer care
c: we don't have an idological right of any significance in Ireland.
d: the ones so far have been a debacle.

zing zong

kmick wrote: »

Commercial is better at getting value for money. End of story. More value = more profit. Anyone who has ever dealt with the government as a supplier of services will know that they dont demand value for money.

but thats just it isn't it. the government is meant to get us best value for money, isn't that what we pay them for after all?? so instead of doing what we pay them for, they shrug it off by selling off services, that we paid for to begin with.

i don't think its that privately run services are better, its just our state run services are so badly run

zing zong

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

But I don't want schools, hospitals, buses, water provision etc run for profit.

I want them run for the benefit of the end user. Which in some cases happens excellently in the public sphere, sometimes badly.

I see no evidence that the private sector, which lets remember went running to the state recently for a gazzilion euro bailout, can do these things better.

couldn't agree more

zing zong

wiseguy wrote: »

Yeh and under a proper capitalist system these would have been allowed to fail and eat own ****.

Instead the socialist mantra of bailouts at all costs was adopted, socializing the risks and all that...

BTW your socialist ideology also suffers from corruption and cronyism, except on an even bigger scale as the late USSR found out

oh come off it, wanting properly run state services, that our taxes pay for hardly makes for communism does it!

Het-Field

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I understand it well enough - MA in Economics mate! Proper free market capitalism cannot happen because of elite networking and corruption that surrounds naked greed. But regardless of the semantics, you have to agree that an economic era ended when Lehmans collapsed and the banks had to be bailed out globally.



And there is a reason for that... There is no drive to privatise because:
a: service provision is generally good in the public space
b: private utility providers in Ireland are of a poor standard, especially in customer care
c: we don't have an idological right of any significance in Ireland.
d: the ones so far have been a debacle.

I cant disagree with your qualifications. But I can disagree with you previous statement, as it is clear that you believe corruption and national greed to be the fundamental reason for the economic tsunami which hit the Globe in the past two years. It would be very foolish to believe that corruption equates to free-marketeering. Government intervention is the cause of the Lehmans collapse. Government intervention can also be used in a corrupt manner. Just look at the increases in Irish public expenditure between 2004-2007. This was proffered by the Government of the day to buy votes. The same applied in 1977, before the state attempted to alleviate the unemployment crisis which transpired by stuffing the unemployed into the public sector.

Again, public service provision in Ireland is not good. It is unreliable, it is expensive, and it is substandard. It is at the whim of some very vociferous Unions who care not about competitiveness, and economic progress, but about an artificial facade when facing Government officials, and seeking ludicrious pay increases at times of economic armageddon.

We dont have an ideological anything in this country. Except for a center-left cabal which is one of the reasons for our problems.

Het-Field

zing zong wrote: »

oh come off it, wanting properly run state services, that our taxes pay for hardly makes for communism does it!

Sorry, but wanting a plethora of public services, paid for by your taxes, and everybody else's (who may not be quite so open to paying if given the opportunity) then it is a form of socialist system.

mgmt

zing zong wrote: »

oh come off it, wanting properly run state services, that our taxes pay for hardly makes for communism does it!

All your talking about is communism. Communists don't believe in the profit motive (remember that from your op). They believe that individuals will work as hard as they can and only take as much as they need. What they forget about is human greed. Look at the public sector greed in the benchmarking farce.

OhNoYouDidn't

Het-Field wrote: »

I cant disagree with your qualifications. But I can disagree with you previous statement, as it is clear that you believe corruption and national greed to be the fundamental reason for the economic tsunami which hit the Globe in the past two years. It would be very foolish to believe that corruption equates to free-marketeering. Government intervention is the cause of the Lehmans collapse. Government intervention can also be used in a corrupt manner. Just look at the increases in Irish public expenditure between 2004-2007. This was proffered by the Government of the day to buy votes. The same applied in 1977, before the state attempted to alleviate the unemployment crisis which transpired by stuffing the unemployed into the public sector.
.

A different debate, but an interesting one. Like it or not, massive corruption does follow free markets, which is why they are doomed to fail.

Het-Field wrote: »

Again, public service provision in Ireland is not good. It is unreliable, it is expensive, and it is substandard. It is at the whim of some very vociferous Unions who care not about competitiveness, and economic progress, but about an artificial facade when facing Government officials, and seeking ludicrious pay increases at times of economic armageddon..

I disagree - I don't think public service provision is 'not good'. There are some examples that are very poor, health springs to mind, but some are excellent, anything to do with taxation, or up until policitcal interference, the passport office are two examples of genuinely best in the world services.

But I see no evidence that the bad, or even mediocre ones, could be run better privately. If that evidence came along, I would have no ideoligical objection to a public service being outsourced IF DONE RIGHT and FOR THE RIGHT REASONS.

Het-Field wrote: »

We dont have an ideological anything in this country. Except for a center-left cabal which is one of the reasons for our problems.

I think we both agree that FF and their cronies are what we are talking about. Are they centre-left though? Would need a lot of convincing on that score.

OhNoYouDidn't

Het-Field wrote: »

Sorry, but wanting a plethora of public services, paid for by your taxes, and everybody else's (who may not be quite so open to paying if given the opportunity) then it is a form of socialist system.

Rubbish. Are you saying there aren't taxes and publically funded social services in the US?