Gnads wrote on Apr 1
st, 2014 at 10:19am:
Pantheon wrote on Apr 1
st, 2014 at 10:02am:
The less assets the Government owns the better, but at the same time, there needs to be check and balances to percent monopoly from developing, basic capitalism 101.
Privately owned business and assets have a profit incentive to cut costs and be more efficient. If you work for a government run industry, managers do not usually share in any profits. However, a private firm is interested in making profit and so it is more likely to cut costs and be efficient.
Also Often state own business and assets are open to Political Interference. They are motivated by political pressures rather than sound economic and business sense. For example a state enterprise may employ surplus workers which is inefficient. The government may be reluctant to get rid of the workers because of the negative publicity involved in job losses. Therefore, state owned enterprises often employ too many workers increasing inefficiency.
Selling assets off will reduce the burden on government, If worst comes to worst, we can just re-nationalized it all from national and international owners.
Essential services such as electricity, gas & water supply should never be in the hands of private enterprise.
Since the introduction of the "Competition Policies" .... where have you seen any benefits to consumers in reduced pricing caused by "said" competition?
The only saving & cost cutting is to the benefit of the company as they slash & burn to cut costs, increase profits & charge consumers more.
If a claim(privatisation & increased competition = cheaper prices & more employment) is proven to be false then why do people like you keep espousing it's benefits?
First what Competition Policies? All i see is regulation that benefit the large corporation and support current monopoly (both Labor and Liberals)
And charging consumers more is counterproductive and only large corporation and monopolies are able to get away with that. If prices are to high you would just stop buying that product and your the cheaper competitor's produced, in our system of large corporation and monopolies we don't have that Luxury and there can be ripped off.
And we can say the same thing about
socialism, a system that has always payed its workers lest than capitalist counties have, made them work in worst conditions and of collapse after 80 years, compare to capitalist 250 years and counting.
That was Communism, not socialism.
Communism (or Socialism - capital S) is not the same thing as socialism (lower-case s).
Not the same thing at all, no-where near it, in fact.
Without an element of socialism, capitalism turns into the fascism we currently suffer
under here and in the UK (for example).
Forum
Pages: 
