freediver wrote on May 27^th, 2024 at 8:25am:


Is it a bad thing to use what has historically happened with privatisation, both positive and negative, to form my opinion on the subject?  Should I not base it on facts?

Instead, I should what, use my gut?

Or form an opinion devoid of reality and then go looking for evidence to support it?

The f mate?

But let me try again, through the goalposts you've decided to set.

In most cases when an asset is publically owned, it's because a service needed to be provided, but it was not profitable or too risky for private investment to set up the means to provide said service, so they didn't.  After all, when profit is the motive, if it's not a sure thing they'll be unlikely to raise enough capital needed to build it.

The free market chose not to participate.

Things like a national electricity grid/generation, gas, water, sewage, emergency services, telecommunications network, etc.

The private sector was not willing to take the risk of creating these various infrastructures so the Government has to step in, funded by our tax dollars and we in return enjoy clean water, electricity etc.

We still have to pay for it, but we get the privilege of having those services that our tax dollars went into creating.

When these are publically owned, the aim to provide the given service to the population as they are necessities.

When you privatise these, their business model is no longer focused on service delivery but on profit.

This is just how private business works.  It's not a good thing, not a bad thing, it just is.

To maximise profit, they must deliver the bare minimum services, for the cheapest cost, while charging the highest amount possible.

This runs the risk of the taxpayers, you (I assume) and I, paying more for less.

If the business isn't able to achieve their profit targets, they'll either have to raise prices more, which if they are the only entity that provides the service we have no option to "vote with our feet" and have to wear it because the service is essential.

If there is no choice but to use this provider, it's not a free market.

If they can't cut costs by delivering a lesser quality service, cut staffing/support/maintenance enough to be profitable, as an essential service, the Government has to step back in to bail them out, because they can't fail.

This is less of a risk, the shift to a profit motive over service delivery, if there are proper regulations in place, to ensure adequate minimum service delivery standards and protections against monopolistic behaviour.

So I'm not against privatisation in general.  There are some benefits to efficiency etc, but it does need to be implemented properly with the Australian people in mind since what is being sold is technically theirs. 

The problem is, historically (careful, don't get triggered), the regulation has been lacking which has left us, the taxpayers, with the bill of fixing the mess went things go wrong.

Did you follow along this time?

SadKangaroo wrote on May 27^th, 2024 at 6:50pm:


You are confusing the issue. Try reading what I posted again, and responding to what I actually said. All economic evidence is based on what has happened in the past. That is seeking knowledge in the past. But basing whether you support private ownership on whether it was historically publicly owned is not seeking knowledge, it is seeking ignorance. It is how you decide something when you are completely rudderless because you do not understand what you are talking about.

Quote:


When I previously asked you whether it was the change that upset you, or whether you see fundamental reasons why an industry should be run privately or publicly, you got rather upset and refused to answer the question.

Would you like to have another go now?

freediver wrote on May 27^th, 2024 at 9:05pm:


It depends on the industry, I don't think anyone can responsibly make a blanket statement about every possibility.

But I have nothing wrong with private ownership, especially if it was never once publicly owned.

But that's not "privatisation".

That's just the free market.

They're not the same thing.

Even the free market needs regulation.

I'm not a fan of the commodification of the people.

freediver wrote on May 27^th, 2024 at 9:10pm:


SadKangaroo wrote on May 27^th, 2024 at 9:08pm:


To further clarify, if the industry provides an essential service, it usually requires the Government to step in, otherwise it turns into a patchwork mess of cherry-picked areas, especially with such a geographically unique landscape we have in Australia.

If the private sector can do it, with or without strong regulation, then great.

They have thus far, proven this to be an impossibility country or even statewide.

Nobody wants to, unless forced, subsidise the regional and rural areas with profits from the more densely populated areas.

Frank wrote on May 27^th, 2024 at 7:46pm:


I remember when the Commonwealth bank was privatised and the government guaranteed that they would control the financial industry through regulation instead of market competition.

The  banks were caught ripping off everyone, The Prime Minister of Rodents at the time stood on the steps of parliament and told / begged the banks to do the right thing. The banking industry gave Howard the finger and told him to mind his own business - which he did.

The regulation scam does not get past the smell test - it simply gets overruled by the corruption.

Dnarever wrote on May 28^th, 2024 at 10:27am:


Even government owned enterprises are regulated by governments. Government departments are regulated by governments. Yet they go bust.

See the collapse of the State Bank of Victoria and the State Bank of South Australia.

Some of you may have heard of "surgery connect '?

It's a Qld labor government policy/ instrument.

Very, very simply how it's meant to work is the Queensland government outsourcing operation's to private hospitals.
It's cherry picking, the very simplest of procedure is sent . If something does go wrong they are sent straight to a public hospital for the clean up.

If a procedure, such as a cataract, cost $3000 to be done in a public hospital the private hospital charges $4500 for the exact same procedure.

It's a interesting policy - one it DOES enable quicker treatment.

Two it does keep private hospitals and staff gainfully employed.

Three it shows exactly how the private sector profits over a public service ( which it should?).

Using private business to assist public services isn't a cheaper option, never has been, it's a valuable addition to what the public service can't provide but the private system will at a premium price.