freediver wrote on May 21^st, 2024 at 4:27pm:


Are we not talking about the same thing?

Dnarever wrote on May 21^st, 2024 at 4:34pm:


I don't think that's a fair statement, but there are qualifiers.

When profit becomes the primary motive in privatised services (which is every case), it often leads to cost-cutting at the expense of service quality and higher prices for consumers. Effective regulation and oversight are critical to ensure that privatisation serves the public interest and does not negatively impact service levels.

The problem is, like those deliberately avoiding making their stance clear on the subject, most people who advocate for free market capitalism in the form of "the private sector do it better" also want little to no regulation accompanying the privatisation.

Those are the situations that lead to worse outcomes and bailouts.

When effectively managed and regulated, privatisation can lead to significant benefits, including improved efficiency, enhanced service quality, and greater investment in infrastructure. The key to successful privatisation lies in ensuring strong regulatory oversight and alignment of private incentives with public interests.

And that's why it so often doesn't work, because one side of politics, and their willing followers, are dead set against that.

SadKangaroo wrote on May 21^st, 2024 at 5:23pm:


You made the generalisation, not me.

Do you think food is an essential service?

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 21^st, 2024 at 5:36pm:


Would you like to try using whole sentences Grapps?

SadKangaroo wrote on May 21^st, 2024 at 5:23pm:


If you have solar panels and a battery you can go off grid which is privatising your electricity.

In rural areas it can be cheaper to go solar/battery than connecting to the grid.

Quote:


Sounds pretty general to me. Or is "essential service" a red herring?

Do you think food is an essential service?

And yes, I do think food is an essential service.

But like I said, not all privatisation is bad, but it does require strong regulation.

At the moment, farmers are getting buggered by the middle men and we're getting buggered by the big 2 supermarkets.

Regulation has failed us and guess who is paying for it with subsidies to producers and consumers during cost of living issues?

Taxpayers, again.

The Australian agricultural and food sectors have largely operated within a market economy framework with significant private sector involvement. They've never been entirely government-run so they're not something that's been "privatised" after creation.

There were some historical exceptions within the states around grain handling and dairy. However, many of these have been privatised over the past few decades but they're only a small subset of the industry as a whole.

So it's again not the same as the Government building infrastructure to provide a vital service and then selling that infrastructure once it's been built and starts to generate a return.

I'm not sure why you're employing these sorts of cheap debate tactics unless you really are stupider than I thought and unable to grasp these basic concepts.

I know you're trying for some sort of socialist gotcha, but it won't work.  Capitalism is the best of a set of bad options, but it needs to be regulated.  Unregulated capitalism has no longevity, and pushing more public sector responsibilities into that framework leads to worse outcomes and more money needing to be spent, that we have to pay for multiple times.