kickoutthejams wrote: » Privatize everything? Nah. ANyone read this?
stevec wrote: » I agree with what you're trying to say however there is a flaw. The problem is a 'top level industrialist' will not be motavated by a salary. A proven 'top level industrialist' will already have more money than he can spend and will only be interested in poker game business, not the betterment of the gereral public. Michael O'Leary would be an example that springs to mind - he revolutionised air travel in europe, what was his motivation? I don't think it was bringing cheap fares to the masses. I've often wondered what would happen if our politicians were only given subsistance salaries - i.e. they had to do the job because they actually cared about the country rather than cared about the salary / perks / backhanders that come with the job.
ART6 wrote: » Could we not try another way? Set up government departments to run power, water, etc, but bring in a top level industrialist to run each one. Pay him a salary of at least the level that we pay our ineffectual ministers and heads of quangos, and tell him to make each efficient, cost effective, and supplying its services at the lowest possible cost to the community and business without seeking to make a profit out of it. That is essentially a company limited by guarantee, the guarantee being that of the government.
FlutterinBantam wrote: » You have a point. Esb employees are amongst the best paid/have security of employment/have all the benefits of a semi-state organisation/highly unionised. Is it any wonder that ESB costs are going up???? Go figure.
ART6 wrote: » Trouble is, that if we leave those "utilities" in the hands of government and the civil service, then they are stifled by bureaucracy and red tape to the extent that they are wasteful beyond imagination.
ART6 wrote: » Could we not try another way? Set up government departments to run power, water, etc, but bring in a top level industrialist to run each one. Pay him a salary of at least the level that we pay our ineffectual ministers and heads of quangos, and tell him to make each efficient, cost effective, and supplying its services at the lowest possible cost to the community and business without seeking to make a profit out of it. That is essentially a company limited by guarantee, the guarantee being that of the government. Establish a shareholder's committees for each utility, those shareholders being TDs, not ministers, and representing the electorate (the stakeholders). They then attend AGMs and question the executives as they do in any company. If the department makes a mess of it's budget (see HSA) then heads roll at the AGM, TDs being more agressive beasts that ministers.
ART6 wrote: » stifled by bureaucracy and red tape to the extent that they are wasteful beyond imagination.
Blue_Lagoon wrote: » *slam dunk*
Blue_Lagoon wrote: » Everything should not be privatized. For example, would you privatize prisons? They did this in the USA and now trade stock issues on the NYSE. But how do prisons make money? They don't, but rather depend upon the monies from taxpayers. Using the corporate business model and applying it to prisons, how do you increase stockholder equity? Buy increasing the number of prisoners and therefore the amount of tax monies received by the private sector for-profit prisons? If you are running a for-profit prison, the last thing you want to do is rehabilitate criminals and potentially reduce the number that return to prison? Bush's Texas is a USA leader in for-profit prisons, not only housing prisoners from Texas, but also from surrounding states, too. Because growth in stockholder equity often relies on business growth, and the supply of prisoners was not an endless source, the for-profit prisons started to look for other sources of prisoners, besides ones with criminal convictions. And guess who they now house behind bars? Families (men, women, and children) caught crossing the boarder into the USA seeking a better life. And the longer they detain them, the more tax monies they get, continuing the growth in stock holder equity and improving the stock price on the NYSE. So these families are not sent immediately back to Mexico or other countries of origin, but detained in for-profit prisons as long as possible. The American Civil Liberties Union is challenging this in the courts, but with a Republican big business Bush administration overseeing what goes on in the States (like asking the fox to look after the chickens), the delays in obtaining the release of these families make for great stock holder return on equity. Another Great American success story?:rolleyes: No! Everything should not be privatized!
ART6 wrote: » Competition is the Holy Grail that leads to better public services and lower prices. But does it?
caoibhin wrote: » The semi-states work well.
ART6 wrote: » Reading the thread started here by hellboy99 about ESB charges started a thought. The EU wants competition in everything other than the EU Commission. Competition is the Holy Grail that leads to better public services and lower prices. But does it? I run a business, and our sole purpose is to make money. Any business that doesn't have that aim will not last five minutes. Point one! Point two. There are some services that are essential to the functioning of society. Those are energy supply, water, drainage, public transport etc. In the UK many years ago now they de-regulated the water industry (for example) with the result that water and drainage charges went through the roof without doing anything identifiable to improve the service. The new water companies had a profit target that had nothing to do with any public service. It was to make money for their shareholders, as they are obliged to do. Trouble is, that if we leave those "utilities" in the hands of government and the civil service, then they are stifled by bureaucracy and red tape to the extent that they are wasteful beyond imagination. Could we not try another way? Set up government departments to run power, water, etc, but bring in a top level industrialist to run each one. Pay him a salary of at least the level that we pay our ineffectual ministers and heads of quangos, and tell him to make each efficient, cost effective, and supplying its services at the lowest possible cost to the community and business without seeking to make a profit out of it. That is essentially a company limited by guarantee, the guarantee being that of the government. Establish a shareholder's committees for each utility, those shareholders being TDs, not ministers, and representing the electorate (the stakeholders). They then attend AGMs and question the executives as they do in any company. If the department makes a mess of it's budget (see HSA) then heads roll at the AGM, TDs being more agressive beasts that ministers. Maybe then we might have an infrastructure that worked efficiently at acceptable cost?
snyper wrote: » id lean toward privitisation sometimes.. HOWEVER... If privitisation were the case in the ESB 30 years ago.. most of rural Irleand would be without electricity and telephones because of the capital costs of the initial infrastructure. State bodies were obliged to supply all homes with electricity.. So therefore in some situations the best interests of all people is not with privitisation... Having said that private companies are far and away more cost efficent than any public run body.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/fc7d50eddf86fd2a7872c6ffac511c39.svg)
