nationalize or privatize

[lugh]

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]

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.

[JAG]

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.

[Fragony]

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]

[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]

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

[Fragony]

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.

[Slyspy]

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]

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

[Xiahou]

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.

[Slyspy]

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

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.

[JAG]

BTW how are you enjoying Staffordshire

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.

[Tachikaze]

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

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.

[Kralizec]

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.