just how retarded does one need to be to compare energy provision with growing food?

freediver wrote on Jul 28^th, 2022 at 6:51am:


Need is not the sole "reason for a natural monopoly", provision also must be considered.

You ignore the comment made ie Food is a group of products produced by thousands of providers ; and in effect  claim equivalence with electricity production merely because "everyone needs electricity", (just as everyone needs food). 

You have to demonstrate equivalence - eg growing strawberries or cucumbers or wheat -   with electricity production, to support your erroneous private profit-seeking privatization ideology.

Quote:


What all can see is the egregious fallacy of your privatization ideology. 

There is no existing example of a successful Australian privatisation.

freediver wrote on Apr 11^th, 2022 at 9:20am:


All management is influenced by politics. Nearly all government corporations are run under corporate protocols. Why should share ownership make a hoot of difference?

Are you talking about board members? Governance? What?

I'm curious. Your case is yet to be made with any compelling examples.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 28^th, 2022 at 1:35pm:


There are few examples of successful foreign government privatisations.

British Rail shares have ended up in the hands of foreign European governments. Train travel in the UK now costs a fortune, and no one's raving about the service. Good luck writing to your local MP.

You'd do better writing to the German government, who have a stake.

In comparison, Sydney Transport is owned by the state of NSW. NSW Government Railways were the first public railway in the British Empire. Today, it runs under a corporate business model and a NSW minister is tasked with administering it. The difference to Mother's British Rail?

Cost. Sydney Transport is able to deliver cheaper travel because it's not ferreting dividends off to Kraut pension funds. Both networks run on best-practice rail standards and a corporate business model. Both are monopolies. One, however, delivers a cheaper service to the consumer, and it's owned by a government.

FD is yet to make his case.

freediver wrote on Jul 28^th, 2022 at 5:48pm:


they're not even remotely similar dumarse. Anyone can grow and sell food. Even you. All they need is a plot of land.

If I want to sell power to the grid you have no options. There is only one line to the house and only one company controlling it.

how about you try something comparable to energy instead of the most ridiculous comparison you can make. Or are you worried that if you stick to something comparable your argument falls flat on it's face?

Another case is the state broadcasters, the ABC and BBC, formed in a time when propaganda was seen as a good thing, before Goebels made it a dirty word.

Both, by most measures, provide the best news in their respective markets. Both are government owned. Both are corporatised, with the BBC achieving its mission by selling advertising.

Both are managed by boards, with minimal government intervention, beyond board appointments, funding and legislated charters.

Unlike the railways, these broadcasters are not monopolies. They compete for viewers and, in the BBC's case, ad revenue.

Would their services be any different if privatised?

That's a question.

The Guardian, similarly independent, is owned by a private trust. It has similar independent editorial policies to the above two broadcasters, and is committed to providing a free online service to readers. Like the ABC and BBC, content is not swayed by any owners or advertisers. It provides a totally independent news service, showing that ownership, be it state or private, does not need to play a role if a governance structure is established that places the interests of consumers at the forefront.

Frank wrote on Jun 8^th, 2022 at 1:10pm:


Just so, as every Chicago schoolboy economist knows.

Nob-transferability may or may not be a moot point, no?