Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Privatisation

Options
245

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    SupaNova2
    Registered Users Posts: 515 ✭✭✭SupaNova2


    benway wrote: »
    I'm familiar with the theory. I await any kind of persuasive empirical proof.

    Why don't you require persuasive empirical proof for your own view?
    I've seen more sloth, waste, apathy, ineptitude, corruption and general inefficiency in private enterprises than I ever have in the public sector.
    What ever makes people assume that private sector provision will self-evidently be less sloppy than public?

    You criticize people for having a different view likely based on their own personal experiences, when that is all you have, your own personal experience.

    Is your experience more valuable somehow? Are we to believe you are more intelligent than the rest of us?


  • Options
    #33
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    SupaNova2 wrote: »
    Why don't you require persuasive empirical proof for your own view?





    You criticize people for having a different view likely based on their own personal experiences, when that is all you have, your own personal experience.

    Is your experience more valuable somehow? Are we to believe you are more intelligent than the rest of us?

    There's hardly anything unreasonable about forming a viewpoint based on one's own experiences, and only being willing to set that view aside on the presentation of empirical evidence contradicting it.

    Sure, it would be nice if nobody ever formed a viewpoint without first rigorously checking the evidence pro and con, but I suspect the number of human beings who really do that is very small - although of course I haven't empirically checked that viewpoint - and it would require the complete suspension of judgement in a very wide variety of matters where evidence is rather poor.


    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #34
    SupaNova2
    Registered Users Posts: 515 ✭✭✭SupaNova2


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    There's hardly anything unreasonable about forming a viewpoint based on one's own experiences, and only being willing to set that view aside on the presentation of empirical evidence contradicting it.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Sure, and the poster in question is having a pop at others for doing just that while he does exactly the same.


  • Options
    #35
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    SupaNova2 wrote: »
    Sure, and the poster in question is having a pop at others for doing just that while he does exactly the same.

    Not from what he's posted on this thread. And that's pretty much an official viewpoint.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #36
    SupaNova2
    Registered Users Posts: 515 ✭✭✭SupaNova2


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Not from what he's posted on this thread. And that's pretty much an official viewpoint.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    No at the moment its your viewpoint unless this forum has made its moderators thought police who can dictate the viewpoints of others. And of course Benway(the only one who can tell us what he meant) can always clear it up by simply answering my post.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    SupaNova2
    Registered Users Posts: 515 ✭✭✭SupaNova2


    Karl Stein wrote: »
    Ah yes, the assumption of 'perfect competition' or in other words 'total fantasy'.

    Eh no, no assumption of perfect competition is needed at all. Even imperfect competition outperforms government monopolies.
    NKlights.jpg


  • Options
    #38
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 18,910 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    North Korea has many, many more problems than a lack of privatisation.

    For fuck sake... :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #39
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    SupaNova2 wrote: »
    No at the moment its your viewpoint unless this forum has made its moderators thought police who can dictate the viewpoints of others. And of course Benway(the only one who can tell us what he meant) can always clear it up by simply answering my post.

    And so you simultaneously claim that nobody but benway can know what he meant and claim he's "taking a pop at people" - over the question of whether you should wait for empirical evidence before forming a viewpoint.

    Irony much?

    amused,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #40
    SupaNova2
    Registered Users Posts: 515 ✭✭✭SupaNova2


    Tony EH wrote: »
    North Korea has many, many more problems than a lack of privatisation.

    The major reason for economic poverty in North Korea is a lack of markets and having the state control all industry and land. They could still have a tyrannical dictator and be a whole lot better off if they privatized land and industry.


  • Options
    #41
    SupaNova2
    Registered Users Posts: 515 ✭✭✭SupaNova2


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    And so you simultaneously claim that nobody but benway can know what he meant and claim he's "taking a pop at people" - over the question of whether you should wait for empirical evidence before forming a viewpoint.

    Irony much?

    amused,
    Scofflaw

    I claim he is taking a cheap pop by holding others to a standard higher than himself, you take a different viewpoint. The best one to clear it up is benway. You telling me your view is the official one is as good as me telling you the same.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Wildlife Actor
    Registered Users Posts: 485 ✭✭Wildlife Actor


    They must get a great night's sleep there in North Korea.


  • Options
    #43
    SupaNova2
    Registered Users Posts: 515 ✭✭✭SupaNova2


    Love nor Money wrote: »
    They must get a great night's sleep there in North Korea.

    I don't think the darkness is enough to distract them from the hunger they feel. How could they ever leave something as important as the production and distribution of food to private industry and the market anyway? Everyone would starve.

    And how could we ever leave bus routes open to private industry? No-one would get from A to B by bus. And how could we ever leave postal services to private industry? No-one would get post from A to B.


  • Options
    #44
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    SupaNova2 wrote: »
    How could they ever leave something as important as the production and distribution of food to private industry and the market anyway? Everyone would starve.

    The profit motive ensured that tonnes of food was shipped out of a country where people were dying from starvation.

    Sound familiar?


  • Options
    #45
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    SupaNova2 wrote: »
    I don't think the darkness is enough to distract them from the hunger they feel. How could they ever leave something as important as the production and distribution of food to private industry and the market anyway? Everyone would starve.

    And how could we ever leave bus routes open to private industry? No-one would get from A to B by bus. And how could we ever leave postal services to private industry? No-one would get post from A to B.

    This has nothing to do with privatisation, or with North Korea. North Korea is a deeply corrupt autocratic state managed for the benefit of a dictator. Treating it as if it were some kind of meaningful alternative to the free market to which normal people aspire is entirely ridiculous.

    Privatised and non-privatised services in a market economy are not the same thing as a command economy, and again it's really ridiculous to equate the two. Both privatised and non-privatised companies are internally command economies, but in a market economy, both are responding to market forces, albeit to different degrees and with somewhat different motivations.

    These are straw men - and very well-worn ones at that. If you have empirical evidence that privatised servioces are superior to state-run services, please present it, as I have done already. Weak rhetorical flourishes are generally superfluous if you have a good empirical argument.

    regards,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #46
    SupaNova2
    Registered Users Posts: 515 ✭✭✭SupaNova2


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    If you have empirical evidence that privatised servioces are superior to state-run services, please present it, as I have done already. Weak rhetorical flourishes are generally superfluous if you have a good empirical argument.

    regards,
    Scofflaw

    Empirical studies are thin on the ground, that includes studies showing state run services are better. None have been presented in the thread and I'm not aware of any.

    In a lot of cases a study can't resolve the issue anyway. If the state supports a bus service at a certain time that often is less than 10% full(which is currently the case) and this route is discontinued when the state no longer supports it, some people will say the state ran a better service because it ran round the clock on routes with few passengers. Others will say the state was wasting resources propping up an unprofitable route, paying for a large bus and its driver and whatever else to ferry four or five passengers across the country.
    These are straw men - and very well-worn ones at that.

    The NK straw-man was in response to the other ludicrous straw-man.
    Originally Posted by Karl Stein viewpost.gif
    Ah yes, the assumption of 'perfect competition' or in other words 'total fantasy'.

    It seems straw-men are ok when directed at one side of an argument and not the other.


  • Options
    #47
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,394 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    When you want to look for efficiencies to need to look at the big picture in my opinion. What has happened with the NDLS is just a continuation of an overall broken up and inefficient portion of state ID identity services. While you might be able to save small money at the fringes the overall efficiencies are minimal.
    There are currently three different forms of state supported ID after your initial birth cert. A passport, a driving license and the public services card. When you apply for all three the requirements are similiar. Proof of address, PPS number, another form of ID and a photo...either taken there or supplied in the case of a passport. On top of these there are usually one or two id specific requirements such as your old document, medical report, proof of passing a test and perhaps garda signatures. Each of these IDS have a different trip and different set of public facing individuals to deal with as well as three different sets of photo requirements.

    Recently the DSP began a significent project to issue public services cards to the entire country.
    Now for me a logical thing to do would be set up a group within DSP and call it Identity Services. Let these be based in the current public service card areas. Should you require any of the three forms of ID mentioned you book an appointment with them. Go in....the take your photo, make sure your documentation is in order and send the documentation etc to one of three relevant ID offices to generaye and isdue the ID.
    What this means for the consumer is that they have a larger network of places to go, a photo someone else takes, what should be less cost and down the line more streamlined forms and requirements.
    For the state it should mean better records could potentially be kept with major benefits, less tenders to negotiate, potential cost savings and duplication of work etc etc.further down the line they could streamline the three seperate document issuing bodies and perhaps the three documents themselves if required.
    They've already the network and physical equipment in place. They may require more staff and equipment until the PSC have been issued initially.

    I am not advocating a single card. Just that for any form of the IDS mentioned you go to the same place, they take your photo and they can verify you are you you say you are by looking at your on file records or validating you fulfill the requirements. Over time you will have less paperwork. Importantly you wont have to travel as far as you do now for some documents.

    Obviously thats a broad roadmap. Much can be amended or streamlined.
    That to me though is how the state should be looking to improve services to its citizens while cutting costs and increasing efficiencies on many levels.......
    The same can be applied to many areas of state work I believe but if you keep looking at the small picture and trying to replicate existing service delivery channels not much will improve for anyone no matter whether the provider is public or private.



    Apologies for spelling etc. On phone.


  • Options
    #48
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    SupaNova2 wrote: »
    Empirical studies are thin on the ground, that includes studies showing state run services are better. None have been presented in the thread and I'm not aware of any.

    In a lot of cases a study can't resolve the issue anyway. If the state supports a bus service at a certain time that often is less than 10% full(which is currently the case) and this route is discontinued when the state no longer supports it, some people will say the state ran a better service because it ran round the clock on routes with few passengers. Others will say the state was wasting resources propping up an unprofitable route, paying for a large bus and its driver and whatever else to ferry four or five passengers across the country.

    Or in other words, it depends on what one thinks of as a better outcome.
    SupaNova2 wrote: »
    The NK straw-man was in response to the other ludicrous straw-man.

    It seems straw-men are ok when directed at one side of an argument and not the other.

    The casual assumption of competition in justifying privatisation is hardly a straw man, I fear.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #49
    SupaNova2
    Registered Users Posts: 515 ✭✭✭SupaNova2


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    The casual assumption of competition in justifying privatisation is hardly a straw man, I fear.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    The assumption that "perfect competition" is needed in justifying privatization is a straw man though.
    Originally Posted by Karl Stein viewpost.gif
    Ah yes, the assumption of 'perfect competition' or in other words 'total fantasy'.


  • Options
    #50
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    SupaNova2 wrote: »
    The assumption that "perfect competition" is needed in justifying privatization is a straw man though.

    Well, I'd want to see empirical proof of that, as no doubt would you.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #51
    SupaNova2
    Registered Users Posts: 515 ✭✭✭SupaNova2


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Well, I'd want to see empirical proof of that, as no doubt would you.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    For me no I don't, but maybe you want empirical proof of " 'perfect competition' or in other words 'total fantasy'. "


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    SupaNova2 wrote: »
    For me no I don't, but maybe you want empirical proof of " 'perfect competition' or in other words 'total fantasy'. "

    Hmm. How come you don't need to see empirical proof that perfect competition is neither required, nor assumed, in privatisation?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #53
    SupaNova2
    Registered Users Posts: 515 ✭✭✭SupaNova2


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Hmm. How come you don't need to see empirical proof that perfect competition is neither required, nor assumed, in privatisation?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Do you think 'perfect competition' is a fantasy?


  • Options
    #54
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    SupaNova2 wrote: »
    Do you think 'perfect competition' is a fantasy?

    As a theoretical construct, no. As something found in the real world, I'd be highly dubious. Have examples ever been found?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #55
    SupaNova2
    Registered Users Posts: 515 ✭✭✭SupaNova2


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    As something found in the real world, I'd be highly dubious. Have examples ever been found?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    If you are highly dubious perfect markets can exist in the real world you are more generous than me and I would be interested to know what qualifies as a perfect market in your books.


  • Options
    #56
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    SupaNova2 wrote: »
    If you are highly dubious perfect markets can exist in the real world you are more generous than me and I would be interested to know what qualifies as a perfect market in your books.

    The relevance of this is presumably to the question of whether perfect markets are used as part of the theoretical prediction or analysis of the benefits of privatisation, so I'm not sure what value your question has as such. You and I might agree they don't exist, most economists might well agree they don't exist - what's at issue, though, is whether they're nevertheless used as an assumption in predicting the outcomes of privatisation. If not, what imperfections are used?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #57
    SupaNova2
    Registered Users Posts: 515 ✭✭✭SupaNova2


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    The relevance of this is presumably to the question of whether perfect markets are used as part of the theoretical prediction or analysis of the benefits of privatisation, so I'm not sure what value your question has as such. You and I might agree they don't exist, most economists might well agree they don't exist - what's at issue, though, is whether they're nevertheless used as an assumption in predicting the outcomes of privatisation.

    Perfect markets are assumed in some economists models. Perfect markets are not an issue for economists that don't assume them when predicting outcomes of privatization.


  • Options
    #58
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    SupaNova2 wrote: »
    Perfect markets are assumed in some economists models. Perfect markets are not an issue for economists that don't assume them when predicting outcomes of privatization.

    That's not really an answer that tells us anything, though. Which group of economists - those who do so assume, those who don't - are the dominant consensus? Which do politicians listen do? On which body of work is the current preference for privatisation predicated?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #59
    Frank Lee Midere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,780 ✭✭✭Frank Lee Midere


    A perfect competitive market would have no barriers to entry and be one where no profits were being made on average. Which isn't to say that some people wouldn't be doing well, however temporarily. I can think if a few. Non-chain restaurants, the early App Store, possibly the Android phone market - although you might want to exclude Samsung.

    Unless there is a continuous pool of people starting companies this lack of profit on average tends to doom the markets. Not always. People set up restaurants all the time, that's about being your own boss.


  • Options
    #60
    SupaNova2
    Registered Users Posts: 515 ✭✭✭SupaNova2


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    That's not really an answer that tells us anything, though. Which group of economists - those who do so assume, those who don't - are the dominant consensus? Which do politicians listen do? On which body of work is the current preference for privatisation predicated?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    If you include economists who argue for and against I would guess those using perfect competition models are dominant. If you only talk about those advocating for privatization, I have no idea.

    Those who don't assume perfect competition most likely identify themselves as classical or austrian economists. If you want to know more about who does and does not assume perfect competition, read Rothbard's Competiton and the Economists, and this Hayek extract.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    On free markets and 'perfect' competition.
    It’s time to start getting honest about a very simple fact: Nobody, but nobody, really believes in free markets. That’s right. Not the Republican Party, not the libertarians, not the Wall Street Journal, nobody.

    Here’s why: a truly free market is a perfectly competitive market. Which means that whatever you have to sell in that market, so does your competition. Which means price war. Which means your price gets driven down. Which means little or no profit for you.

    Naturally, businesses flee perfectly competitive markets like the plague. In fact, the fine art of doing so is a big part of what they teach in business schools.

    http://rwer.wordpress.com/2011/12/18/why-free-market-economics-is-a-fraud/


Advertisement