Dubstepforum.com

after all the maggie-ness of privatisation since the 80's we now have some of the biggest banks in the uk essentially nationalised!
i dunno what i feel about it really so thought wud post

There's no doubt in my mind that privatisation brought greater efficiencies, however also more profiteering, so basically you are getting a better service for more.

I don't think it will make too much difference to banking, let's just hope that the stocks increase in value and the balance sheets of these banks recover sufficiently that the tax payer doesn't end up losing out.

datura wrote:There's no doubt in my mind that privatisation brought greater efficiencies, however also more profiteering, so basically you are getting a better service for more.

I don't think it will make too much difference to banking, let's just hope that the stocks increase in value and the balance sheets of these banks recover sufficiently that the tax payer doesn't end up losing out.

yes to more efficient, but more efficient because they cut corners, and anything that does not directly effect their own private profits, so I would say a big fat no to the better service.

The banks had to be bailed out, I do not see what other option there was, hopefully now they are nationalised some control can be exerted and come the next decade they wont need bailing out again.

Far as I see it Maggies ideas of privatisation have not worked out in the long term and are a huge contributing factor as to why so much is fucked right now, so lets hope this nationalisation continues.

eLBe wrote:

datura wrote:There's no doubt in my mind that privatisation brought greater efficiencies, however also more profiteering, so basically you are getting a better service for more.

I don't think it will make too much difference to banking, let's just hope that the stocks increase in value and the balance sheets of these banks recover sufficiently that the tax payer doesn't end up losing out.

yes to more efficient, but more efficient because they cut corners, and anything that does not directly effect their own private profits, so I would say a big fat no to the better service.

I guess your opinion rests on your own personal experience really. Government run businesses tend to be overly beauracratic, with decision making extremely slow and also it is a lot harder to jettison underperforming staff.

I don't want the Government running anything tbh.

Privatisation is a bad thing in my opinion. It makes profit the main objective over the needs of the person. When this is related to public services the results are terrible. Unluckily for us this is what is happening to the NHS and I predict that the police aren't far behind. When that happens it's time to leave the country en masse.

As for the banks being bailed out? There probably isn't any other options for the government but all they are doing is delaying the inevitable. Its not like they are going to stop making money now is it?

Tomity wrote:Privatisation is a bad thing in my opinion. It makes profit the main objective over the needs of the person. When this is related to public services the results are terrible.

The key to making it succesful is to ensure that there is competition, and not just passing a government owned monopoly to a private owned monopoly.If so then the consumer should really be the winner (unless there's price fixing by collusion of course )

datura wrote:

Tomity wrote:Privatisation is a bad thing in my opinion. It makes profit the main objective over the needs of the person. When this is related to public services the results are terrible.

The key to making it succesful is to ensure that there is competition, and not just passing a government owned monopoly to a private owned monopoly.If so then the consumer should really be the winner (unless there's price fixing by collusion of course )

I dont agree with this. Certain things should just be available and work well. Who gives a fuck what your phone provider is as long as it is cheap and works? Same goes with public transport, health care, education.....

These multinational companies are so big and powerful that I can't imagine a situation where monopolies don't occur.

Tomity wrote:

datura wrote:

Tomity wrote:Privatisation is a bad thing in my opinion. It makes profit the main objective over the needs of the person. When this is related to public services the results are terrible.

The key to making it succesful is to ensure that there is competition, and not just passing a government owned monopoly to a private owned monopoly.If so then the consumer should really be the winner (unless there's price fixing by collusion of course )

I dont agree with this. Certain things should just be available and work well. Who gives a fuck what your phone provider is as long as it is cheap and works? Same goes with public transport, health care, education.....

These multinational companies are so big and powerful that I can't imagine a situation where monopolies don't occur.

I don't care who my phone provider is, I just want good service and value.

There are actually very few true monopolies, so I don't really see where you're coming from, and there is the competitions commission to prevent such things occurring also.

In regards to public transport, Stagecoach took over the trams in Manchester recently, the prices for my route actually reduced in price and the service has been far more reliable and they even did some work to improve the tracks etc.

Why cant they take over the fucking trams in Croydon the stnuc.

Fuck you Mr Boris Johnson leeching £160 a month from me so I can just get to work.

datura wrote: In regards to public transport, Stagecoach took over the trams in Manchester recently, the prices for my route actually reduced in price and the service has been far more reliable and they even did some work to improve the tracks etc.

Well that's fair enough. But we'll see in a few years time how the operation looks. I just don't think that privately owned companies competing with each other provide a better service than a publicly owned service which is allowed to run a loss.

Tomity wrote:

datura wrote: In regards to public transport, Stagecoach took over the trams in Manchester recently, the prices for my route actually reduced in price and the service has been far more reliable and they even did some work to improve the tracks etc.

Well that's fair enough. But we'll see in a few years time how the operation looks. I just don't think that privately owned companies competing with each other provide a better service than a publicly owned service which is allowed to run a loss.

gotta agree with tomity here, I will wager that in 10 years time you tram service is ridiculously expensive and pretty piss poor.

Private companies only have one goal, to make lots of money, no matter how much competition you introduce they will always, always, minimise their costs and maximise their profits, this does not translate into good service. I think a good analogy would be to compare them to someone who claims to be a friend smiles to your face whilst liftin your wallet from you pocket.

Private companies are very good at some things - eg they tend to respond better to what people actually want, because there are lots of them and they need to produce something that people want to buy or they'll go under. I'd far rather have things like jam and cheese and clothes and biscuits and bikes and records produced by a bunch of small companies who are all trying to produce the thing that I actually want rather than having the State Jam Corporation produce something bland that they think a lot of people probably want and know that everyone will have to buy it anyway. And big publically run things can get very very fucked up, because the people in charge are wedged in there politically and they can just waste money left right and centre and noone has any incentive to sort them out.

On the other hand, private companies are pretty appaling at anything where long term investment is required, or where 'maximizing profit' and 'giving customers what they want' don't coincide much, or where it doesn't make sense to have competition, or where intangiable but important things like public safety could be compromised...

I don't think there's a simple answer to be honest.

Reckon it's all the death throes of the financial system tobe honest - money can only be created through lending of money under the current system - which means eventually there's so much debt created that people stop taking it.... not really helped at all by resources becoming scarcer too of course.

Gordon Brown's just giving tax payers money to banks so they can try to lend it back to us and then charge us interest on it.... which seems a little off kilter....

Don't really care though - I'm going off grid asap

Slothrop wrote:Private companies are very good at some things - eg they tend to respond better to what people actually want, because there are lots of them and they need to produce something that people want to buy or they'll go under. I'd far rather have things like jam and cheese and clothes and biscuits and bikes and records produced by a bunch of small companies who are all trying to produce the thing that I actually want rather than having the State Jam Corporation produce something bland that they think a lot of people probably want and know that everyone will have to buy it anyway.

I think thats the major point. When companies get to a certain size they cause mischief.

For example Serco. They are a huge company and amongst other things they own rail networks like merseyrail, prisons in england and germany, immigration detention centres (prisons), manage airports in iraq and run the education authority in bradford. They also work in the arms industry.

Companies like that should not be around. They are suspect imo. And I don't like the fact that if I need to get to Liverpool I'm funding the fuckers.

datura wrote:Government run businesses tend to be overly beauracratic, with decision making extremely slow and also it is a lot harder to jettison underperforming staff.

that's putting in mildly. you wouldn't believe how badly run most government departments are. that said though, is there any suggestion that the government is going to be involved in the operation in these banks other than in the encouragement to give more loans and mortgages etc? correct me if i'm wrong because there may well be but i've not being following this that closeley