View Full Version : nationalize or privatize
ShadesWolf
11-30-2005, 21:01
nationalization - Definition : (of a government) to take control of a business or industry
privatize - Definition : If a government privatizes an industry, company or service that it owns and controls, it sells it so that it becomes privately owned and controlled
Which do you think are best?
ShadesWolf
11-30-2005, 21:05
Some activities I believe need to be run by the state, a form of health service (most minimal to care for the most needy) and Postal services etc.
However, other activities, such as mining, power, transport etc, I feel can only be run efficiently and effectively in private hands.
Crazed Rabbit
11-30-2005, 21:11
Everything but postal should be privitized.
The private industry is hugely more efficient, which benefits consumers and taxpayers.
Crazed Rabbit
Ser Clegane
11-30-2005, 21:21
Everything but postal should be privitized.
Curious - why, of all services, should postal not be privatized?
Duke Malcolm
11-30-2005, 21:36
A mix of both...
Basic infrastructure (telecommunication lines, roads, railtracks, Aeroport Authorities, power lines), the Post Office, water supply, prisons, health, education should be nationalised.
Actual transport (planes, trains, buses), energy supply, health, education, mining, drilling, and most other things should be privatised
Alexander the Pretty Good
11-30-2005, 21:39
I think the best would be a mix of both, if biased towards privatization.
I don't know if I want privitized prisons.
However, I think some things should be "statized" - state governments controlling them instead of the feds.
Meneldil
11-30-2005, 21:56
Activities like transport, postal, power, health, have to be nationalized to ensure efficiency, low cost and availability to everyone.
Commercial activites shall remain privately owned.
Meneldil
11-30-2005, 22:42
Hum, yeah, I'm going to edit that
yesdachi
11-30-2005, 22:50
Privatize everything that is not critical to basic national functionality. Like roads, very basic healthcare, prison, court system, police, military, some others but basically the things that absolutely need to be in place should be nationalized. Then privatize everything else but keep a watchdog system in place so corporations or influential people cant gain too much power. ~:)
Kagemusha
11-30-2005, 23:10
I think you can privatize everyhing else then the Government itself,the emergency services,the police and the Army.
I personally like the nationalized Healthcare system,but i dont see why it could not work also provided by Privat hospitals.
Same goes with the education.
Louis VI the Fat
12-01-2005, 01:57
Activities like transport, postal, power, health, have to be nationalized to ensure efficiency, low cost and availability to everyone.
I agree! :jumping:
Though I'm not so sure about those lower costs. Nor that efficiency either.
however limit what is privatised to non-monopolies.
Do not privatise
ROADS, RAIL, WATER, ELECTRICITY, TELEPHONE.
However you pay for the usage of these, and compention for additional products using these. e.g. scented water.
Kagemusha
12-01-2005, 02:22
however limit what is privatised to non-monopolies.
Do not privatise
ROADS, RAIL, WATER, ELECTRICITY, TELEPHONE.
However you pay for the usage of these, and compention for additional products using these. e.g. scented water.
In my country those are privat companies. Altough the State and cities own large part of their stocks.
Sjakihata
12-01-2005, 02:25
Nationalize all the industries and services, even the small stands where boys sell lemonade (yes, I stole that from nationstates)
All infrastructure, Nationalize.
Most of the rest, privet.
By doing so, you garante a stable basic ground for the privet companies, who tend to f**k things up to work on and grow and crumble as they are prone to do.
People will be happy since they get a feeling of freedom and also happy since everything wont get all scewed up.
bmolsson
12-01-2005, 03:05
The important thing is not privatization. The important thing is competition. No monopolies should be allowed. Who actually owns the legal entities is irrelevant.
doc_bean
12-01-2005, 12:14
Privatizing only works if you can guarantee sufficient competition, that's imho what's causing all these problems with privatisation in Europe.
That said, I feel trains should remain nationalized, i find our current system much more efficient than the privatized dutch system (*shudder*). Distribution of electricity shouldn't be privatized either, think of all the extra lines that would be needed ! Roads by private companies works in france, but wouldn't in Belgium. Water is partly privatized already, the postal services are a money pit anyway, I don't see any profit in it either way.
I'm in favour of nationalizing a lot of stuff, but not in a monopolistic manner.
For example, here at least, some bus routes etc just aren't economical but serve a social purpose; with even partial privatization we've seen routes cut off. So let the private industry in but maintain a state network as well, after all, competition is good.
Another matter is strategic interest. Energy is too important to allow into solely private hands, a state operator is needed to ensure minimum service in times of emergency. Here at least, the energy pool is private where the infrastructure is nationalized, everyone power comes from a pool, so each company doesn't have the cost of laying lines etc etc
Same in telephone, or was until the state company was privatised, AFAIK the infrastructure is still the states property.
Ja'chyra
12-01-2005, 12:54
Nationalise everything and run it for profit. ~;)
Seriously, the main thing wrong with nationalised industries is they have ne incentive to be competitive, if you could tie in profit making to bonuses etc then I'm sure they would be much more efficient.
All infrastructure and other industry vital to the running and well being of the people in the state should be nationalised, it is simply not good enough to allow such important industry to be at the hands of market forces, there can be no loosers in this industry, thus nationalisation is the only way forward which is fair to everyone.
However I am shifting on how exactly you run the nationalised industry, I would be willing to see some private companies run certain aspects of an industry. For instance using private companies to build the buildings for the NHS, etc. Things such as that I don't really have much problem with.
One should only privatise when there is real competition, otherwise the big cats will all take a slice of the pie and enjoy it together, and artificially keep the price high to secure their business. We are seeing that now here in Dutchiestan with the energy sector, you need a 'fresh' market which makes sense enough for new investers to make it happen.
Kanamori
12-01-2005, 18:59
[O]therwise the big cats will all take a slice of the pie and enjoy it together, and artificially keep the price high to secure their business.
This is only in markets where there will always be high demand. Energy, food, and housing, among other things. Otherwise, they cannot simply jack the prices up as people will simply decide the price outweighs the product.
All infrastructure and other industry vital to the running and well being of the people in the state should be nationalised, it is simply not good enough to allow such important industry to be at the hands of market forces, there can be no loosers in this industry, thus nationalisation is the only way forward which is fair to everyone.
Nationalization does not gaurantee the effectiveness of some industry, only that the people have more control over it. Nationalizing is not the only way to increase reliability; one can set requirements for those industries based on an interest in public health, which is how many of the things such as energy are done here.
Crazed Rabbit
12-01-2005, 19:00
Hmmm, I recall hearing about some country that tried your 'nationalize everything' scheme, what was it? Hmm...oh yes, it was the Soviet Union! Perhaps we should ask them how it turned out. That is, we could if they still existed.
JAG, you act as if market forces are some crazy lottery where industries randomly crash. As can be seen from numerous examples around the globe, this does not happen. Important industries continue because they make an important product.
Also, privitized companies are always more efficient. Nationalizing everything would lower the standard of living as it becomes more expensive to get the same goods. Also, in a nationalized economy, since there are no market forces to determine the price for goods, the whole economy becomes whacked and production isn't geared towards what is actually needed, since you can't determine how much you need one item compared to another item.
Nationalization is most certainly not 'a way forward', it's a way to stagnate your economy, reduce human rights, and the civil rights of your people.
Crazed Rabbit
JAG, you act as if market forces are some crazy lottery where industries randomly crash. As can be seen from numerous examples around the globe, this does not happen. Important industries continue because they make an important product.
But they will make that product only if they have to, to privatise an allready saturated market is asking for trouble because of the lack of demand. Some things you just cannot leave to the market because they are just too important to throw at the wolves, there are people in this world that only think about profits.
Also, privitized companies are always more efficient. Nationalizing everything would lower the standard of living as it becomes more expensive to get the same goods. Also, in a nationalized economy, since there are no market forces to determine the price for goods, the whole economy becomes whacked and production isn't geared towards what is actually needed, since you can't determine how much you need one item compared to another item.
Nationalization is most certainly not 'a way forward', it's a way to stagnate your economy, reduce human rights, and the civil rights of your people.
Crazed Rabbit
No, sorry, I don't get it. We in Britain have seen any number of badly handled privatisations go wrong. Many of the so called private enterprises are badly run, formed on poorly a planned basis and are continually bailed out with tax-payers money (especially the rail network, which has been partially re-nationalised). If a service (these projects are usually services and utilities) id not profitable then don't buy it off the government. If it turns out not to be profitable then don't cry about it and beg the government to bail you out. They'll buy you out quick enough when you go bankrupt. If we pay a big chunk of cash out to keep their shareholders happy (apparently many are unaware that such ventures do not automatically bring a return) then why not renationalise? At least then there is more accountability.
ShadesWolf
12-01-2005, 21:10
All infrastructure and other industry vital to the running and well being of the people in the state should be nationalised, it is simply not good enough to allow such important industry to be at the hands of market forces, there can be no loosers in this industry, thus nationalisation is the only way forward which is fair to everyone.
If it is run by a government you will have inefficiency and no investment will be made to improve productivity. All you have to do is look at the British motor industry to understand that. If you examine the Japanese companies in the UK compared the the British ones and you will see what I mean.
BTW how are you enjoying Staffordshire ~:cheers:
If it is run by a government you will have inefficiency and no investment will be made to improve productivity. All you have to do is look at the British motor industry to understand that. If you examine the Japanese companies in the UK compared the the British ones and you will see what I mean.
Indeed, when you nationalize an industry, its not that there are no losers- its that everyone loses. ~;)
yesdachi
12-01-2005, 21:31
Mass nationalism would be communism (right?), would mass privatization be a form of feudalism with CEO’s replacing Barons?
Sjakihata
12-01-2005, 21:56
Mass nationalism would be communism (right?), would mass privatization be a form of feudalism with CEO’s replacing Barons?
I believe the word for that form is capatilism
If it is run by a government you will have inefficiency and no investment will be made to improve productivity. All you have to do is look at the British motor industry to understand that. If you examine the Japanese companies in the UK compared the the British ones and you will see what I mean.
BTW how are you enjoying Staffordshire ~:cheers:
I would argue that utilities and infrastructure can benefit from nationalisation from a service point of view. They can also be run on a not-for-profit basis. Industries such as car manufacturing fall into a different classification. They are non-essential and are solely for profit and as such nationalisation would be neither useful nor desirable.
Oh and it is quite feudal in a way, especially when it comes to the balance of power better business and government. Significant differences are the the workers are not serfs and are free to leave at any time to seek alternative employment, employers rarely have direct control over their worker's private lives and that workers can enjoy a share of the wealth created by their labours.
BTW how are you enjoying Staffordshire ~:cheers:
Less busy than London - which is exactly what I wanted - better air and a chance to walk in the countryside a bit - also what I wanted. But not loving the weather, that snow we had Monday - here in Keele at least - was mad. 7 Inches of snow in a couple hours and it stayed for days! The snowball fights were good though :D
Those who state how nationalisation is 'so inefficient', are not only exaggerating the would be problems in efficiency of the state run sector, but also exaggerating the effectiveness of the private sector. As others have pointed out, over here our private sector in many industries like the railways and utilities have been incredibly inefficient. Nations such as Sweden get away with incredibly efficient nationalised industry, the reasons quite simply is that they allow the private sector to do some of the donkey work in a nationalised frame work and keep the nationalised industry strictly localised. Exactly what I believe in and what I stated earlier, it is the best of both worlds.
yesdachi
12-02-2005, 02:35
I believe the word for that form is capatilism
I know all about capitalism, I have even owned my own company and have been a partner in another, I love capitalism. What I am talking about is on a larger scale. Say, a CEO of a large corporation that dominates the market and employees millions especially in a region or state, then that CEO, who already has significant power and influence, runs for election as governor and wins and commands even more power then his original company that he had to give up the position of CEO to but still holds a large % of stock decides to take advantage of the recent initiative to privatize transportation, power and the police force by encouraging his company to purchase those industries and… bla… bla… bla… 10 years later he is Baron of the state. A little far fetched but many CEO’s already hold great power and are invested in numerous industries, its not totally out of the question to consider someone who owns/controls a large portion of many critical industries a Baron in a feudal land. Is it? Am I drunk?~:)
Tachikaze
12-02-2005, 03:36
If it is run by a government you will have inefficiency and no investment will be made to improve productivity. All you have to do is look at the British motor industry to understand that. If you examine the Japanese companies in the UK compared the the British ones and you will see what I mean.
BTW how are you enjoying Staffordshire ~:cheers:
You might be surprised to what degree Japanese car companies are nationalized. There's a reason why all auto companies operating in Japan in 1970 are still producing vehicles. That's not true of the US.
Alexander the Pretty Good
12-02-2005, 04:37
yesdachi - it sounds like a post-apocalyptic sci-fi plotline for a B-movie. ~D
yesdachi
12-02-2005, 04:42
yesdachi - it sounds like a post-apocalyptic sci-fi plotline for a B-movie. ~D
B-movie! Dang, I better add loads of T&A or no producer will pick up the script!~;)
Alexander the Pretty Good
12-02-2005, 04:57
You know, change "Baron" to a hot Baroness, and you're on your way...
ShadesWolf
12-02-2005, 15:16
But not loving the weather
You aint seen nothing yet ~;) End of Jan to beginning of March are the coldest and most rough times for weather. You might need to buy a woolen hat ~:)
Originally Posted by Tachikaze
You might be surprised to what degree Japanese car companies are nationalized. There's a reason why all auto companies operating in Japan in 1970 are still producing vehicles. That's not true of the US
Sorry mate we are at cross purposes, I am talking about the Japanese car companies in the UK as a comparison to the UK car companies. The Japanese are one of the most effecient and high productivity companies in the world. Whereas as a comparison the UK 'run' companies are/ were the least efficient and have the lowest productivity in the world
Thats because the cars were rubbish. Austin Allegro anyone?
Kralizec
12-03-2005, 20:45
Hmmm, I recall hearing about some country that tried your 'nationalize everything' scheme, what was it? Hmm...oh yes, it was the Soviet Union! Perhaps we should ask them how it turned out. That is, we could if they still existed.
A pretty bold statement, considering that the Soviet Union failed because of a multitude of factors- the lack of competition inspired competition being only one.
For example, if you were high up sitting with your thumbs up your ass you still were in virtually no risk of being fired. Breznjev and his successors were terrible executives, but were rarely removed because
A) there was a nation wide tendency to lie or distort reports sent to your superiors to make it appear everything was fine. There was absolutely no transparancy.
B) Soviet officials were generally eager to cover eachother's asses, as long as you did a good job in upholding the facade of a working economy.
I think a lot of officials "knew" that the Soviet economy wasn't functioning at all on a structural level, but either "doublethinked" themselves into ignorance or delibaratly didn't do anything because nobody was particulary interested in changing the order of things.
In fact, a popular joke in the Soviet Union was this:
Stalin, Kruschev and Breznjev sit in a train. Suddenly the train stops due to mechanical failure, and everybody looks to Stalin for a solution.
"Shoot the driver, send the personel to Siberia and get me some fresh ones!" he barked.
The train started running again, but stopped once more after a few miles. This time everybody looked at Kruschev.
"Get the personel back from Siberia, rehabilitate them and give them back their jobs!" he yelled.
Once more the train moved, yet stopped again after a measly few miles. Now everybody turned to look at Breznjev.
"Close the curtains, then it will look as if we're moving!" he ordered.
The Soviet Union collapsed because of lack of transparancy, accountability and will to change just as much, if not more, then any other reason. I'm not saying socialism could work, just that the Soviet Union is not a reliable model to argue that it can't. Or for nationalisation in general.
Crazed Rabbit
12-03-2005, 21:34
Those who state how nationalisation is 'so inefficient', are not only exaggerating the would be problems in efficiency of the state run sector, but also exaggerating the effectiveness of the private sector. As others have pointed out, over here our private sector in many industries like the railways and utilities have been incredibly inefficient. Nations such as Sweden get away with incredibly efficient nationalised industry, the reasons quite simply is that they allow the private sector to do some of the donkey work in a nationalised frame work and keep the nationalised industry strictly localised. Exactly what I believe in and what I stated earlier, it is the best of both worlds.
Really? Perhaps you need to realize that your privitazation of a couple industries in Britain is in no way indicative of the rest of the world, or even the other industries that could be privitized. There is a huge margin between private and public efficiency, as can be seen by your examples 1) transit 2) utilities and, from the other thread, 3) health care. That's a very wide spectrum, and it shows how nationalization is useless. Its failing to provide basic services even somewhat decently. If its more inefficient, why even waste taxpayer's money? The people could get more, cheaper, and better service through privitization.
Nationalization is also a violation of people basic human rights.
Fianlly, you addressed nothing from this:
Also, privitized companies are always more efficient. Nationalizing everything would lower the standard of living as it becomes more expensive to get the same goods. Also, in a nationalized economy, since there are no market forces to determine the price for goods, the whole economy becomes whacked and production isn't geared towards what is actually needed, since you can't determine how much you need one item compared to another item.
Crazed Rabbit
Kralizec
12-03-2005, 21:49
Nationalization is also a violation of people basic human rights.
I suppose you're referring to the government actually internalising an industry by force- not industries that have always been in the governments hands?
AntiochusIII
12-04-2005, 02:23
I know all about capitalism, I have even owned my own company and have been a partner in another, I love capitalism. What I am talking about is on a larger scale. Say, a CEO of a large corporation that dominates the market and employees millions especially in a region or state, then that CEO, who already has significant power and influence, runs for election as governor and wins and commands even more power then his original company that he had to give up the position of CEO to but still holds a large % of stock decides to take advantage of the recent initiative to privatize transportation, power and the police force by encouraging his company to purchase those industries and… bla… bla… bla… 10 years later he is Baron of the state. A little far fetched but many CEO’s already hold great power and are invested in numerous industries, its not totally out of the question to consider someone who owns/controls a large portion of many critical industries a Baron in a feudal land. Is it? Am I drunk?~:)Erm...that's real as hell. And sad, too.
Thailand: the current prime minister, Thaksin, is a corrupted bastard who fits your description to the letter. He is powerful in every branches of the country, he is the richest guy in it, he is audacious and rules the foolish rural masses with his propaganda and promises while badmouthing (and "pursuing legal action") at every intellectual or Bangkok"ians" opposing him as "unpatriotic dumbarses." No doubt there used to be a strong communist presence there based on young disaffected college students.
Italy: I suppose I have little else to say with that family ruling the nation so tightly, eh?
And more...
Privatization of basic infrastructure is risky on the fact that the people loses any real power of controlling these basic needs of their lives. In governments at least they can nominally affect changes through their votes and petitions, in the cruel business waters a fall of a company like that can leave a family or an entire city without water or electricity and no one accountable for it.
Of course, while the nation should control the base, competition will stifle efficiency; but sometimes there are more than security involved. I don't know about the issue so much as to provide details as what kind of system I'd like.
Crazed Rabbit
12-04-2005, 04:03
I suppose you're referring to the government actually internalising an industry by force- not industries that have always been in the governments hands?
That, and the fact that when a government nationalizes something, they form a monopoly, and won't let other people even try to perform the same service and force the people to rely on the government.
Crazed Rabbit
bmolsson
12-04-2005, 08:21
As mentioned before, for a functional capitalistic system, competition is the key and not who owns the resources.
If you had a market with three players, all government owned, and they where competing properly, you would have a functional capitalistic system.
A private company controlling the market is not capitalistic, it's just a feodal thing, nothing better than any communistic monopoly.
off topic
Less busy than London - which is exactly what I wanted - better air and a chance to walk in the countryside a bit - also what I wanted. But not loving the weather, that snow we had Monday - here in Keele at least - was mad. 7 Inches of snow in a couple hours and it stayed for days! The snowball fights were good though :D
could be worse m8, we got 14 inches of snow last 2 days, and it isnt going anywhere until march..
on topic
up here in the great north, privatization does not work for everything, prime examples are power, gas, waste(sewage), and water. basic neccesaties for survival, all of these up here are coops, we as citizens of anchorage, ak own them, i dont trust private coorps to run them because quite frankly their a little to greedy for their own good, examples are our phone and trash services which used to be owned by the citizens, but were sold to private coorps, our rates have gone up 30% over the last two years, whereas we havent had a rate increase in the basice yet, yet being the key word, were expecting rate increases starting in january.
another reason is in most of these instances it wouldnt be cost effective for a coorp to run most of these services to communities with fewer than 500 residents, but unfortunately that applies to about half of our states villages, the cost unfortunately needs to be spread across everybody in the state so that all people, everywhere will get some form of basic neccessaties of life, i just dont have enough faith in the private industry to do that.
doc_bean
12-04-2005, 13:26
That, and the fact that when a government nationalizes something, they form a monopoly, and won't let other people even try to perform the same service and force the people to rely on the government.
Crazed Rabbit
Some things are natural monopolies, and some things are just better as a monopoly. Do you want seperate train rails used by sperate companies ? Seperate High voltage wires ? It's bad enough we allowed every cell phone distributor to have its own broadcast towers...
Really? Perhaps you need to realize that your privitazation of a couple industries in Britain is in no way indicative of the rest of the world, or even the other industries that could be privitized. There is a huge margin between private and public efficiency, as can be seen by your examples 1) transit 2) utilities and, from the other thread, 3) health care. That's a very wide spectrum, and it shows how nationalization is useless. Its failing to provide basic services even somewhat decently. If its more inefficient, why even waste taxpayer's money? The people could get more, cheaper, and better service through privitization.
Nationalization is also a violation of people basic human rights.
Fianlly, you addressed nothing from this:
Crazed Rabbit
Private companies running vital services are a baaaaaaad idea. Here in Nova Scotia when I was a child the power company was a public company, when I was a teenager the provioncial government privatized it to save money (but kept it on a very short lease, theoritically, via an oversite board). After 10 years of a private company I can say that the private power company provides service that is 5 times worse than the public one. Why you ask? Well the problem is that Nova Scotia is fairly rural. And a private for profit company can't and won't probvide the same service to all areas. 2 years ago this was made appearant when hurricane Juan made it here and pounded us good. Power was out here in the capital district (Halifax regional municipality) for 4 days. But even the more remote parts of HRM (which is an amalgamation of old Halifax, it's twin city Dartmouth, Halifax's bedroom communities Bedford and Sackville and the surrounding county) had no power for 2 weeks (affected areas in the surrounding counties had to wait 3 weeks). The provincial government had to call in power line workers from the 3 surrounding provinces and the army to fix the damage. Then 3 months later a bad blizzard knocked out every power line that Juan left standing. Now these are disasters that don't really prove my point. But they are symptoms of the disease of a private power company. The problem is that the private company has less people working for it, especially linemen crews to fix downed lines. That leads to the populated areas (HRM, Sydney, Truro, Yarmouth) getting more priority. While rural areas can (and in fact have) freeze in the dark. Even now if there is a strong wind people in rural areas can go for days with no power. To our society power is a vital service and people waiting weeks to get power back after an storm is not acceptable.
Privatize everything that is not critical to basic national functionality. Like roads, very basic healthcare, prison, court system, police, military, some others but basically the things that absolutely need to be in place should be nationalized. Then privatize everything else but keep a watchdog system in place so corporations or influential people cant gain too much power. ~:)
Unlike in the U.S., I agree.
Although if that "watchdog-system" works, stands in the stars.
Private companies running vital services are a baaaaaaad idea. Here in Nova Scotia when I was a child the power company was a public company, when I was a teenager the provioncial government privatized it to save money (but kept it on a very short lease, theoritically, via an oversite board). After 10 years of a private company I can say that the private power company provides service that is 5 times worse than the public one. Why you ask? Well the problem is that Nova Scotia is fairly rural. And a private for profit company can't and won't probvide the same service to all areas. 2 years ago this was made appearant when hurricane Juan made it here and pounded us good. Power was out here in the capital district (Halifax regional municipality) for 4 days. But even the more remote parts of HRM (which is an amalgamation of old Halifax, it's twin city Dartmouth, Halifax's bedroom communities Bedford and Sackville and the surrounding county) had no power for 2 weeks (affected areas in the surrounding counties had to wait 3 weeks). The provincial government had to call in power line workers from the 3 surrounding provinces and the army to fix the damage. Then 3 months later a bad blizzard knocked out every power line that Juan left standing. Now these are disasters that don't really prove my point. But they are symptoms of the disease of a private power company. The problem is that the private company has less people working for it, especially linemen crews to fix downed lines. That leads to the populated areas (HRM, Sydney, Truro, Yarmouth) getting more priority. While rural areas can (and in fact have) freeze in the dark. Even now if there is a strong wind people in rural areas can go for days with no power. To our society power is a vital service and people waiting weeks to get power back after an storm is not acceptable.
That is because private companies prefer to repair rather than maintain. Using this routine they can reduce their workforce down to a minimum which unfortunately leaves them swamped when something major happens. It also leaves infrastructure more vulnerable in its decayed state. We see it in the railways over here. Of course there is no guarantee that re-nationalised service will not follow suit since in many cases the same people will be running it.
That is because private companies prefer to repair rather than maintain. Using this routine they can reduce their workforce down to a minimum which unfortunately leaves them swamped when something major happens. It also leaves infrastructure more vulnerable in its decayed state. We see it in the railways over here. Of course there is no guarantee that re-nationalised service will not follow suit since in many cases the same people will be running it.
No doubts there. While in the Community Colledge one of my class mates used to be a line man for NS power corp. he said that before they privatized they had 2/3 more line crews than they did when he worked there after privitization
Here is a link on Slashdot (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/04/0527242&tid=215&tid=95&tid=187) which says regulation, reduces costs and improves service.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.