Australian Politics Forum

ProudKangaroo

Gold Member

Offline

The Sandstorm is coming
🎵Doo doo doo doo🎵

Posts: 19319
Mianjin (Brisbane)

Re: privatisation
Reply #465 - May 22^nd, 2024 at 11:04am

freediver wrote on May 22^nd, 2024 at 10:43am:

Quote:

They've never been entirely government-run so they're not something that's been "privatised" after creation.

Is that a red herring, or do you think the economics depends on the history?

Quote:

So it's again not the same

What is the distinction you are trying to make?

The thread is about privatisation.

How can something that was never government-owned or run ever be privatised?

It seems like you just want to talk about private businesses regardless of if they were originally publicly owned?

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49956
At my desk.

Re: privatisation
Reply #466 - May 22^nd, 2024 at 11:06am

ProudKangaroo wrote on May 22^nd, 2024 at 11:04am:

freediver wrote on May 22^nd, 2024 at 10:43am:

Quote:

They've never been entirely government-run so they're not something that's been "privatised" after creation.

Is that a red herring, or do you think the economics depends on the history?

Quote:

So it's again not the same

What is the distinction you are trying to make?

The thread is about privatisation.

How can something that was never government-owned or run ever be privatised?

It seems like you just want to talk about private businesses regardless of if they were originally publicly owned?

So you think they should be government run because that's the way it was in the past? Is there some kind of principle behind your argument, or do you just not like change?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 13746
Gender: male

Re: privatisation
Reply #467 - May 22^nd, 2024 at 11:35am

freediver wrote on May 22^nd, 2024 at 10:43am:

Is that a red herring, or do you think the economics depends on the history?

Quote:

So it's again not the same

What is the distinction you are trying to make?

You are certainly illuminating SK's contention, namely: I'm not sure why you're employing these sorts of cheap debate tactics unless you really are stupider than I thought and unable to grasp these basic concepts".

Normally farmers grow food in the private sector, with many farmers growing different types of food, whether grains in larger scale operations, or veggies in often small scale operations, food which is sent to markets and sold, and the 'private market' functions satisfactorily. Mostly......

Except in India when a good crop means farmers commit suicide because low prices means they can't repay debt accrued to plant the crop.

And in Oz - wine grape growers thought they were onto a good wicket....; both the above are examples of the limitations of the free market. (China guarantees farmers' incomes with subsidies when required, to counteract market outcomes).

So yes, food is an "essential service", which normally can be provided in the private sector, because many farmers produce many different items for which they expect there will be a market; the maco-effect of which results (usually) in satisfactory 'clearing' in the market.

Unlike electricity, where there are a few big providers all selling the same thing (electricity) into the market, who are in a position to set prices beyond what the market can bear eg in the current cost of living crisis.

Should be nationalized, to get rid of the profit expense, - unlike the myriad of farmers who are competing with one another and cannot be easily nationalized (as Mao found out...)

In fact farmers are a lot like the independent agents (boot makers, bakers) in Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' theory, now obsolete because boots and bread are now largely made by a few globally owned monopolies.

So face it: some industry (eg farming) works satisfactorily in the private sector, whereas other industry (eg electricity production) is a disaster if left to the profit seeking private sector, because the farmers still face the competitive forces of Smith's 'invisible hand' market ( with prices determined by what the market can bear), versus monopolistic price-setters in electricity production which the government is forced to regulate to avoid profit gougers burdening electricity consumers.

Back to top

« Last Edit: May 22^nd, 2024 at 11:40am by thegreatdivide »

IP Logged

ProudKangaroo

Gold Member

Offline

The Sandstorm is coming
🎵Doo doo doo doo🎵

Posts: 19319
Mianjin (Brisbane)

Re: privatisation
Reply #468 - May 22^nd, 2024 at 11:40am

freediver wrote on May 22^nd, 2024 at 11:06am:

ProudKangaroo wrote on May 22^nd, 2024 at 11:04am:

freediver wrote on May 22^nd, 2024 at 10:43am:

Quote:

They've never been entirely government-run so they're not something that's been "privatised" after creation.

Is that a red herring, or do you think the economics depends on the history?

Quote:

So it's again not the same

What is the distinction you are trying to make?

The thread is about privatisation.

How can something that was never government-owned or run ever be privatised?

It seems like you just want to talk about private businesses regardless of if they were originally publicly owned?

So you think they should be government run because that's the way it was in the past? Is there some kind of principle behind your argument, or do you just not like change?

No, you're trying to change what I've said to something you think you can argue against.

When the Government sets up an entity to provide an essential service to the community that the private sector hasn't been able to provide, either because of the cost of initial investment or it's just not profitable, the focus is on service delivery.

When that is privatised, the model changes from a focus on service delivery to a return on investment, so a focus on profit over service delivery.

If this change does not come with strong regulations to ensure adequate minimum service delivery levels, protections against competition issues etc it results in worse outcomes for those people who need those services.

When the focus is service delivery, the aim is to provide the best service possible. When the focus is profit, it's to provide the bare minimum service possible at the lowest price while charging the highest amount for it.

That is the major objection. If you're ok with the idea of paying more for less to purely satisfy an ideological desire, then so be it.

But when it's an essential service, it becomes one of those "too big to fail" situations where if service levels drop too far or there are poor business practices such as high levels of underinvestment in maintenance or no innovation outside of cost-cutting and staff layoffs, we, the taxpayers have to bail them out.

Those sorts of bailouts are welfare, which should for those ideologically driven be triggering, but apparently corporate welfare is ok.

After all, the given services like water, electricity, gas, public transport, health and even internet these days are essential and must be provided, there is no choice.

So we pay more for less, and then have to pay again to fix the problems. So we paid to build the service, run the service, then it got sold and we have to pay again to bail it out?

Just because the companies bottom line might be good doesn't mean there isn't billions of wasted dollars, but that NEVER gets factored in, just ignored to push the lie that the private sector always does it better.

It's not a good system.

If it's properly regulated it can work and a private business has more freedoms to drive down costs than your standard Government agency would have.

But there is nearly a full crossover between "The private sector do it better" crowd and the "small government, too much red tape" crowd.

When the Government want a quick cash injection to balance the books, they're willing to concede in certain regulatory ways that are terrible for us, but great for the private business.

Setting up "leases" on ports so they can claim it wasn't privatised, but then enforcing that no others can operate within a certain exclusion zone to ensure a monopoly and then the prices increase because there is no competition and no choice, that's bad for us.

But that's great for the newly privatised port's profit-driven aims.

These are the risks of privatisation when it's not done right.

One of my previous posts outlined just a few examples of what happens when it's not done right...

It's really not hard to understand and less you're trying to be willfully ignorant for argument's sake.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49956
At my desk.

Re: privatisation
Reply #469 - May 22^nd, 2024 at 12:29pm

thegreatdivide wrote on May 22^nd, 2024 at 11:35am:

freediver wrote on May 22^nd, 2024 at 10:43am:

Is that a red herring, or do you think the economics depends on the history?

Quote:

So it's again not the same

What is the distinction you are trying to make?

You are certainly illuminating SK's contention, namely: I'm not sure why you're employing these sorts of cheap debate tactics unless you really are stupider than I thought and unable to grasp these basic concepts".

Normally farmers grow food in the private sector, with many farmers growing different types of food, whether grains in larger scale operations, or veggies in often small scale operations, food which is sent to markets and sold, and the 'private market' functions satisfactorily. Mostly......

Except in India when a good crop means farmers commit suicide because low prices means they can't repay debt accrued to plant the crop.

And in Oz - wine grape growers thought they were onto a good wicket....; both the above are examples of the limitations of the free market. (China guarantees farmers' incomes with subsidies when required, to counteract market outcomes).

So yes, food is an "essential service", which normally can be provided in the private sector, because many farmers produce many different items for which they expect there will be a market; the maco-effect of which results (usually) in satisfactory 'clearing' in the market.

Unlike electricity, where there are a few big providers all selling the same thing (electricity) into the market, who are in a position to set prices beyond what the market can bear eg in the current cost of living crisis.

Should be nationalized, to get rid of the profit expense, - unlike the myriad of farmers who are competing with one another and cannot be easily nationalized (as Mao found out...)

In fact farmers are a lot like the independent agents (boot makers, bakers) in Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' theory, now obsolete because boots and bread are now largely made by a few globally owned monopolies.

So face it: some industry (eg farming) works satisfactorily in the private sector, whereas other industry (eg electricity production) is a disaster if left to the profit seeking private sector, because the farmers still face the competitive forces of Smith's 'invisible hand' market ( with prices determined by what the market can bear), versus monopolistic price-setters in electricity production which the government is forced to regulate to avoid profit gougers burdening electricity consumers.

So people should not be allowed to have rooftop solar in case they charge too much for the power they produce?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

ProudKangaroo

Gold Member

Offline

The Sandstorm is coming
🎵Doo doo doo doo🎵

Posts: 19319
Mianjin (Brisbane)

Re: privatisation
Reply #470 - May 22^nd, 2024 at 12:31pm

freediver wrote on May 22^nd, 2024 at 12:29pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on May 22^nd, 2024 at 11:35am:

freediver wrote on May 22^nd, 2024 at 10:43am:

Is that a red herring, or do you think the economics depends on the history?

Quote:

So it's again not the same

What is the distinction you are trying to make?

You are certainly illuminating SK's contention, namely: I'm not sure why you're employing these sorts of cheap debate tactics unless you really are stupider than I thought and unable to grasp these basic concepts".

Normally farmers grow food in the private sector, with many farmers growing different types of food, whether grains in larger scale operations, or veggies in often small scale operations, food which is sent to markets and sold, and the 'private market' functions satisfactorily. Mostly......

Except in India when a good crop means farmers commit suicide because low prices means they can't repay debt accrued to plant the crop.

And in Oz - wine grape growers thought they were onto a good wicket....; both the above are examples of the limitations of the free market. (China guarantees farmers' incomes with subsidies when required, to counteract market outcomes).

So yes, food is an "essential service", which normally can be provided in the private sector, because many farmers produce many different items for which they expect there will be a market; the maco-effect of which results (usually) in satisfactory 'clearing' in the market.

Unlike electricity, where there are a few big providers all selling the same thing (electricity) into the market, who are in a position to set prices beyond what the market can bear eg in the current cost of living crisis.

Should be nationalized, to get rid of the profit expense, - unlike the myriad of farmers who are competing with one another and cannot be easily nationalized (as Mao found out...)

In fact farmers are a lot like the independent agents (boot makers, bakers) in Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' theory, now obsolete because boots and bread are now largely made by a few globally owned monopolies.

So face it: some industry (eg farming) works satisfactorily in the private sector, whereas other industry (eg electricity production) is a disaster if left to the profit seeking private sector, because the farmers still face the competitive forces of Smith's 'invisible hand' market ( with prices determined by what the market can bear), versus monopolistic price-setters in electricity production which the government is forced to regulate to avoid profit gougers burdening electricity consumers.

So people should not be allowed to have rooftop solar in case they charge too much for the power they produce?

Do you not know what privatisation is dear?

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 49956 At my desk.	Re: privatisation Reply #471 - May 22^nd, 2024 at 12:33pm Do you think they should be government run because that's the way it was in the past? Is there some kind of principle behind your argument, or do you just not like change?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

ProudKangaroo

Gold Member

Offline

The Sandstorm is coming
🎵Doo doo doo doo🎵

Posts: 19319
Mianjin (Brisbane)

Re: privatisation
Reply #472 - May 22^nd, 2024 at 1:05pm

freediver wrote on May 22^nd, 2024 at 12:33pm:

Do you think they should be government run because that's the way it was in the past? Is there some kind of principle behind your argument, or do you just not like change?

I'm not repeating myself again,

https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1649572754/468#468

If you don't like the answer, I can't help you.

Do better.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49956
At my desk.

Re: privatisation
Reply #473 - May 22^nd, 2024 at 1:07pm

ProudKangaroo wrote on May 22^nd, 2024 at 1:05pm:

freediver wrote on May 22^nd, 2024 at 12:33pm:

Do you think they should be government run because that's the way it was in the past? Is there some kind of principle behind your argument, or do you just not like change?

I'm not repeating myself again,

https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1649572754/468#468

If you don't like the answer, I can't help you.

Do better.

So that's a yes? It's the change that is the problem, not anything fundamental about whether it should be private or public?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 13746
Gender: male

Re: privatisation
Reply #474 - May 22^nd, 2024 at 1:34pm

freediver wrote on May 22^nd, 2024 at 12:29pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on May 22^nd, 2024 at 11:35am:

freediver wrote on May 22^nd, 2024 at 10:43am:

Is that a red herring, or do you think the economics depends on the history?

Quote:

So it's again not the same

What is the distinction you are trying to make?

You are certainly illuminating SK's contention, namely: I'm not sure why you're employing these sorts of cheap debate tactics unless you really are stupider than I thought and unable to grasp these basic concepts".

Normally farmers grow food in the private sector, with many farmers growing different types of food, whether grains in larger scale operations, or veggies in often small scale operations, food which is sent to markets and sold, and the 'private market' functions satisfactorily. Mostly......

Except in India when a good crop means farmers commit suicide because low prices means they can't repay debt accrued to plant the crop.

And in Oz - wine grape growers thought they were onto a good wicket....; both the above are examples of the limitations of the free market. (China guarantees farmers' incomes with subsidies when required, to counteract market outcomes).

So yes, food is an "essential service", which normally can be provided in the private sector, because many farmers produce many different items for which they expect there will be a market; the maco-effect of which results (usually) in satisfactory 'clearing' in the market.

Unlike electricity, where there are a few big providers all selling the same thing (electricity) into the market, who are in a position to set prices beyond what the market can bear eg in the current cost of living crisis.

Should be nationalized, to get rid of the profit expense, - unlike the myriad of farmers who are competing with one another and cannot be easily nationalized (as Mao found out...)

In fact farmers are a lot like the independent agents (boot makers, bakers) in Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' theory, now obsolete because boots and bread are now largely made by a few globally owned monopolies.

So face it: some industry (eg farming) works satisfactorily in the private sector, whereas other industry (eg electricity production) is a disaster if left to the profit seeking private sector, because the farmers still face the competitive forces of Smith's 'invisible hand' market ( with prices determined by what the market can bear), versus monopolistic price-setters in electricity production which the government is forced to regulate to avoid profit gougers burdening electricity consumers.

So people should not be allowed to have rooftop solar in case they charge too much for the power they produce?

No, in fact government should fund installation of rooftop solar on every suitable roof in the nation - and nationalize the fossil fuel industry.

Bingo - free electricity (since currency-issuing governments can issue money for free, and "opportunity costs" are irrelevent in an AGW emergency).

Great to see you digging ever-greater holes in which to bury the "privatization" ideology, as the global economy is about to be overwhelmed by ecological and economic reality.

Back to top

IP Logged

ProudKangaroo

Gold Member

Offline

The Sandstorm is coming
🎵Doo doo doo doo🎵

Posts: 19319
Mianjin (Brisbane)

Re: privatisation
Reply #475 - May 22^nd, 2024 at 1:37pm

freediver wrote on May 22^nd, 2024 at 1:07pm:

ProudKangaroo wrote on May 22^nd, 2024 at 1:05pm:

freediver wrote on May 22^nd, 2024 at 12:33pm:

Do you think they should be government run because that's the way it was in the past? Is there some kind of principle behind your argument, or do you just not like change?

I'm not repeating myself again,

https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1649572754/468#468

If you don't like the answer, I can't help you.

Do better.

So that's a yes? It's the change that is the problem, not anything fundamental about whether it should be private or public?

No, it's a No.

Read the post...

I've already said that privatisation can work with strong regulations. But in practice that rarely happens.

I mean, I can try to explain like you're a 5 year old, but it's a complex issue that deserves more than that.

With public ownership, the focus is on providing the service. With private ownership, the focus is on profit for the private business interests.

Private ownership leads to a culture of minimum service delivery for the lowest cost, charging the maximum amount, usually operating in a monopoly landscape which means the customers don't have choice, it's not a free market.

It needs strong regulation to set an adequate minimum service level guarantee and to ensure the people are not exploited through the monopoly.

The problem is in practice, those lobbying for privatisation have a vested interest in the least amount of regulation possible so they can maximise their profits, and lobby/donate/bribe for that too.

In these situations, the public taxpayer, us, often ends up footing the bill when things go wrong because these now privatised businesses are providing vital services and can't fail.

So we, the people, end up paying more, paying multiple times and getting less for it.

I can't summarise it any less than that. If you can't understand then you're actively choosing not to.

Back to top

IP Logged

ProudKangaroo Gold Member Offline The Sandstorm is coming 🎵Doo doo doo doo🎵 Posts: 19319 Mianjin (Brisbane)	Re: privatisation Reply #476 - May 22^nd, 2024 at 1:39pm And wouldn't you know it, MWest just released a video on the topic, How long until we have to shell out more money to bail them out?
Back to top	IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49956
At my desk.

Re: privatisation
Reply #477 - May 22^nd, 2024 at 5:24pm

Quote:

Read the post...

I did. It focussed on the change from public to private. Not whether there is anything fundamental that means it should be one or the other. You have not provided any kind of rational argument for whether we are better off with any particular industry being public or private. Every time I ask you about a specific aspect of your argument, it turns out to be a red herring. I am yet to come across the bit that does not disappear as soon as you look at it.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

ProudKangaroo

Gold Member

Offline

The Sandstorm is coming
🎵Doo doo doo doo🎵

Posts: 19319
Mianjin (Brisbane)

Re: privatisation
Reply #478 - May 22^nd, 2024 at 7:00pm

freediver wrote on May 22^nd, 2024 at 5:24pm:

Quote:

Read the post...

I did. It focussed on the change from public to private. Not whether there is anything fundamental that means it should be one or the other. You have not provided any kind of rational argument for whether we are better off with any particular industry being public or private. Every time I ask you about a specific aspect of your argument, it turns out to be a red herring. I am yet to come across the bit that does not disappear as soon as you look at it.

It's there is black and white, it's not about the change from public to private as an ideology, but the change in priority when the service is government run vs privately run and in terms of vital infrastructure, the fact that we the public have to foot the bailout bill.

If you're not happy with that and want specifics you're going to need to choose an industry or services because there is no blanket right or wrong when it comes to privatisation.

Each instance is different.

I'm extending good faith here to unbelievable levels...

Back to top

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 59832
Here
Gender: male

Re: privatisation
Reply #479 - May 22^nd, 2024 at 7:15pm

ProudKangaroo wrote on May 21^st, 2024 at 5:22pm:

Dnarever wrote on May 21^st, 2024 at 4:34pm:

freediver wrote on May 21^st, 2024 at 12:11pm:

Dnarever wrote on May 21^st, 2024 at 11:57am:

freediver wrote on May 21^st, 2024 at 11:07am:

Quote:

Water & electricity generation & supply should not ever be in the hands of "private enterprise".

Why not?

Quote:

The moment you privatise that, the priority is to deliver the bare minimum service

What makes you think that?

Quote:

What makes you think that?

It's called history.

You can call it anything you like. Can you explain it? Or is it like a religion for you?

There are no known cases of privatisation in Australia where the customer or the people have benefited.

I don't think that's a fair statement, but there are qualifiers.

When profit becomes the primary motive in privatised services (which is every case), it often leads to cost-cutting at the expense of service quality and higher prices for consumers. Effective regulation and oversight are critical to ensure that privatisation serves the public interest and does not negatively impact service levels.

The problem is, like those deliberately avoiding making their stance clear on the subject, most people who advocate for free market capitalism in the form of "the private sector do it better" also want little to no regulation accompanying the privatisation.

Those are the situations that lead to worse outcomes and bailouts.

When effectively managed and regulated, privatisation can lead to significant benefits, including improved efficiency, enhanced service quality, and greater investment in infrastructure. The key to successful privatisation lies in ensuring strong regulatory oversight and alignment of private incentives with public interests.

And that's why it so often doesn't work, because one side of politics, and their willing followers, are dead set against that.

Quote:

Effective regulation and oversight are critical to ensure that privatisation serves the public interest and does not negatively impact service levels.

Correct but this has never happened. Originally when the commonwealth bank was privatised strong regulation guaranteeing standards and control was the commitment but that quickly fell by the wayside.

Remember when free to air sport coverage was supposedly legislated as part of that deal - gee I wonder where that went. Not strictly privatisation but very similar in broadcasting regulation and private competition of a free broadcasting service.

Quote:

anti-siphoning scheme was introduced to ensure sport “events of national importance and cultural significance” would not be captured exclusively by pay TV at the expense of free-to-air coverage.

Back to top

IP Logged