Private Enterprise and Correctional Facilities
-
fat_boy wrote:
Perhaps in relation to banking, but when the supply of water in the UK was privatised it was a disaster. Prices went up and the quality went down.
I could see that, since private enterprise is profit-maximising. For utilities companies, privatisation is usually bad. But a good bank is a profitable bank. Your money is most secure with a profitable bank.
73Zeppelin wrote:
Your money is most secure with a profitable bank.
That might once have been true but when things go wrong big time, as now on both sides of the Atlantic, a secure bank has became an endangered species. Only Governments can issue legal assurances for people's savings as shown by the Northern Rock failure and subsequent Nationalisation. Regarding Utility Companies, if it serves the public interest then a privatized Utility Company can work irrespective if it is water, gas, electricity or telephone. But the danger is that customers can find themselves at a substantial disadvantage (price, quality & customer service) especially where the local utility is a monopoly, and more so if it is foreign owned.
-
John Carson wrote:
I'm talking about its actual goals
So, in your opinion, what are the actual goals of, say, a nationallised electricity company? (ie non comercial and no shareholders)
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
So, in your opinion, what are the actual goals of, say, a nationallised electricity company? (ie non comercial and no shareholders)
It depends on how it is set up, which varies from country to country (and possibly region to region, where there is autonomy). Some such companies are given profit goals to meet, others are given cost benchmarks, reliability benchmarks... Some operate with a high level of autonomy from government ministers, others are subject to signficant ministerial control (and the legislation governing ministerial action can vary in terms of things like reporting requirements and the possibility of review by the courts or other agencies). Sometimes nationalised firms may operate in competition with private firms, sometimes they are monopolies. All these details affect incentives. Employees in these government organisations (up to and including management) are to a substantial degree motivated by the same sorts of considerations as employees elsewhere: a concern for their rates of pay, promotion prospects, job security, working conditions, level of autonomy and accountability...and the pursuit of their objectives in these respects is not synonymous with pursuing the public interest. If they can get paid a lot of money for doing very little, they may well be happy to do that. In general, I have a higher opinion than most people do of the efficiency and social beneficence of government organisations. However, I don't just assume that they automatically work for the social good. It depends on their political masters and on the incentive structures within which they operate.
John Carson
-
Sentences are too leniant anyway, more kids like these hould be locked up!
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Who would want to government being able to directly look at your bank accounts?
Sarkozy?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Government officials themselves don't count!
-
AndyKEnZ wrote:
Makes me wonder if banks should be in private hands.
I think so. In order to be secure, banks need to be profitable enterprises. Since private industry can always do it cheaper and more efficiently than government, I think the banks should remain privatised. Who would want to government being able to directly look at your bank accounts?
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Your money is most secure with a profitable bank.
That might once have been true but when things go wrong big time, as now on both sides of the Atlantic, a secure bank has became an endangered species. Only Governments can issue legal assurances for people's savings as shown by the Northern Rock failure and subsequent Nationalisation. Regarding Utility Companies, if it serves the public interest then a privatized Utility Company can work irrespective if it is water, gas, electricity or telephone. But the danger is that customers can find themselves at a substantial disadvantage (price, quality & customer service) especially where the local utility is a monopoly, and more so if it is foreign owned.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
That might once have been true but when things go wrong big time, as now on both sides of the Atlantic, a secure bank has became an endangered species. Only Governments can issue legal assurances for people's savings as shown by the Northern Rock failure and subsequent Nationalisation. Regarding Utility Companies, if it serves the public interest then a privatized Utility Company can work irrespective if it is water, gas, electricity or telephone. But the danger is that customers can find themselves at a substantial disadvantage (price, quality & customer service) especially where the local utility is a monopoly, and more so if it is foreign owned.
Speaking of secure banks, did you, by any chance, watch Hard Talk on the BBC when they were interviewing the ex-Prime Minister of Iceland? I saw it just last night. He (the ex-Prime Minister) was very intent on implicating England as one of the major facilitators of Iceland's financial collapse.
-
AndyKEnZ wrote:
Makes me wonder if banks should be in private hands.
I think so. In order to be secure, banks need to be profitable enterprises. Since private industry can always do it cheaper and more efficiently than government, I think the banks should remain privatised. Who would want to government being able to directly look at your bank accounts?
73Zeppelin wrote:
Since private industry can always do it cheaper and more efficiently than government
Nice slogan. You repeat it to yourself every night before going to sleep to be sure to believe it?
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Who would want to government being able to directly look at your bank accounts?
Let me translate that into UK English: Who would want to government being able to directly lose your bank accounts? :)
Heh. Yeah, well, who would want either? Or both??!?
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Since private industry can always do it cheaper and more efficiently than government
Nice slogan. You repeat it to yourself every night before going to sleep to be sure to believe it?
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread Fold with us! ¤ flickr
Ka?l wrote:
Nice slogan. You repeat it to yourself every night before going to sleep to be sure to believe it?
No need to. Self-evident truths need no reinforcement.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
That might once have been true but when things go wrong big time, as now on both sides of the Atlantic, a secure bank has became an endangered species. Only Governments can issue legal assurances for people's savings as shown by the Northern Rock failure and subsequent Nationalisation. Regarding Utility Companies, if it serves the public interest then a privatized Utility Company can work irrespective if it is water, gas, electricity or telephone. But the danger is that customers can find themselves at a substantial disadvantage (price, quality & customer service) especially where the local utility is a monopoly, and more so if it is foreign owned.
Speaking of secure banks, did you, by any chance, watch Hard Talk on the BBC when they were interviewing the ex-Prime Minister of Iceland? I saw it just last night. He (the ex-Prime Minister) was very intent on implicating England as one of the major facilitators of Iceland's financial collapse.
-
Government officials themselves don't count!
73Zeppelin wrote:
Government officials themselves don't count!
It's not that they don't, it's that they prove over and over again that they can't, that bothers me.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
That might once have been true but when things go wrong big time, as now on both sides of the Atlantic, a secure bank has became an endangered species. Only Governments can issue legal assurances for people's savings as shown by the Northern Rock failure and subsequent Nationalisation. Regarding Utility Companies, if it serves the public interest then a privatized Utility Company can work irrespective if it is water, gas, electricity or telephone. But the danger is that customers can find themselves at a substantial disadvantage (price, quality & customer service) especially where the local utility is a monopoly, and more so if it is foreign owned.
Speaking of secure banks, did you, by any chance, watch Hard Talk on the BBC when they were interviewing the ex-Prime Minister of Iceland? I saw it just last night. He (the ex-Prime Minister) was very intent on implicating England as one of the major facilitators of Iceland's financial collapse.
No, but I'll catch the repeat. However, the ex-Icelandic Prime Minister I remember wasn't too pleased when Britain used Anti-Terror legislation against certain Iceland Assets/Government late last year. And yes, I can understand his dismay as a huge quantity of money from UK Local Authorities, UK Police Forces and private individuals and so on were on deposit there. But not all is UK's fault, Icelandic banks must also take some of the blame, they were offering higher than normal interest rates on deposited savings and were thus rather more vulnerable.
-
Ka?l wrote:
Nice slogan. You repeat it to yourself every night before going to sleep to be sure to believe it?
No need to. Self-evident truths need no reinforcement.
-
Yeah, a belief does not need a justification.
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread Fold with us! ¤ flickr
KaЯl wrote:
Yeah, a belief does not need a justification.
Neither does a fact. :)
-
KaЯl wrote:
Yeah, a belief does not need a justification.
Neither does a fact. :)
73Zeppelin wrote:
Neither does a fact.
You don't understand. If Karl believes it, it's a fact. If Karl doesn't want to believe it, it is right-wing propaganda.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Neither does a fact.
You don't understand. If Karl believes it, it's a fact. If Karl doesn't want to believe it, it is right-wing propaganda.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
As a general rule of thumb, since living here I have noticed that the French seem to favour government involvement. This is a paradox, however, as they are constantly protesting and going on strike against government. Very much a love/hate relationship.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Not so. Whether it lives up to its goals in a seperate issue, but at root, the goal of a government (and I dont mean partisan government, but the permenant government, in the UK its called Whitehall) is to serve the populace, and hence the country. (At least for a democratic country. For non democratic countries there is little point discussing this since the goal will always be to serve the rulling classes, however, as hostory shows, even in those countries the populace will eventually get fed up if they are not served to some degree).
I think you are being too idealist.
I sent the Google search app I hacked together to your .fr address. You may want to watch your spam folder.
Cheers, Vıkram.
I've never ever worked anywhere where there has not been someone who given the choice I would not work with again. It's a job, you do your work, put up with the people you don't like, accept there are probably people there that don't like you a lot, and look forward to the weekends. - Josh Gray.
-
KaЯl wrote:
Yeah, a belief does not need a justification.
Neither does a fact. :)
Now that the managment of public waters in the city of Grenoble was withdrawn from a private company to be now managed by a public service, the bills are down . It's a fact: In Grenoble, le public moins cher que le privé, pour un service de meilleure qualité[^]
When they kick at your front door How you gonna come? With your hands on your head Or on the trigger of your gun?
-
I sent the Google search app I hacked together to your .fr address. You may want to watch your spam folder.
Cheers, Vıkram.
I've never ever worked anywhere where there has not been someone who given the choice I would not work with again. It's a job, you do your work, put up with the people you don't like, accept there are probably people there that don't like you a lot, and look forward to the weekends. - Josh Gray.
Thanks, Vikram!
-
Now that the managment of public waters in the city of Grenoble was withdrawn from a private company to be now managed by a public service, the bills are down . It's a fact: In Grenoble, le public moins cher que le privé, pour un service de meilleure qualité[^]
When they kick at your front door How you gonna come? With your hands on your head Or on the trigger of your gun?
Ka?l wrote:
Now that the managment of public waters in the city of Grenoble was withdrawn from a private company to be now managed by a public service, the bills are down . It's a fact: In Grenoble, le public moins cher que le privé, pour un service de meilleure qualité[^]
Does the government subsidize a portion of the cost?