Printable View
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?
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.
Everything but postal should be privitized.
The private industry is hugely more efficient, which benefits consumers and taxpayers.
Crazed Rabbit
Curious - why, of all services, should postal not be privatized?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
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
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.
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.
Hum, yeah, I'm going to edit that
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. ~:)
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.
I agree! :jumping:Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
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.
In my country those are privat companies. Altough the State and cities own large part of their stocks.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwitt
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.
The important thing is not privatization. The important thing is competition. No monopolies should be allowed. Who actually owns the legal entities is irrelevant.
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
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.Quote:
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.
BTW how are you enjoying Staffordshire ~:cheers:
Indeed, when you nationalize an industry, its not that there are no losers- its that everyone loses. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadesWolf
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 capatilismQuote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadesWolf
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.