Promises of efficiency through privatization are illusory


coldstream
+1
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

The problem is not with free trade but with lack of planning. For example, privatizing a natural monopoly (except to make it into a consumer cooperative maybe) is generally not a good idea, but that has nothing to do with free trade.

As for charging interest on loans, I agree with placing an upper limit on interest. We need to ban loansharking and other forms of usury by imposing lw maximum rates of interest.

But again, none of this has nothing to do with free trade.

As for deregulation, let's not oversimplify things. A true opponent of deregulation would be praising North Korea. Inversely, we don't want anarchy either. Deregulation is generally a good thing when well planned. You seem to confuse and oversimplify things on all fronts.

Free Trade has NEVER worked, except to an everdiminishing mercantile and trading class. Economic planning in fact is an anthema to a Free Trade system, which subverts all national prerogative in defining its own economic destiny.

Freidrich List did the first critical study of Free Trade in the 1840s, published under the title of the National System of Political Economy, when he compared the British Imperial Free Trade System as expounded by Adam Smith with that of the American System of protected markets and commercial regulation as expounded by Alexander Hamilton.

In every way the Free Trade system produced impoverishment, industrial atrophy, polarization of wealth, enslavement of workers into captive colonies. The American System produced industrial vitality and equitable sharing of wealth. America and West's economic decline has EVERYTHING to do with Free Trade.
Last edited by coldstream; Sep 24th, 2016 at 12:42 PM..
 
petros
#32
Port Moody deserved it.
 
Machjo
#33
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstreamView Post

Free Trade has NEVER worked, except to an everdiminishing mercantile and trading class. Economic planning in fact is an anthema to a Free Trade system, which subverts all national prerogative in defining its own economic destiny.

Freidrich List did the first critical study of Free Trade in the 1840s, published under the title of the National System of Political Economy, when he compared the British Imperial Free Trade System as expounded by Adam Smith with that of the American System of protected markets and commercial regulation as expounded by Alexander Hamilton.

In every way the Free Trade system produced impoverishment, industrial atrophy, polarization of wealth, enslavement of workers into captive colonies. The American System produced industrial vitality and equitable sharing of wealth. America and West's economic decline has EVERYTHING to do with Free Trade.

How do you explain that poorer states's economies grow faster under free trade? Or are you suggesing that wealthier countries should look out for their own interests only? And if so, how do you reconcile that with your religious beliefs?
 
MHz
#34
Banking should be used as the example and the question would be very clear in just a few words.
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
+1
#35
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar SinisterView Post

Given the fact that private companies have to make a profit; it should be more than obvious that they cannot supply services more cheaply than government. In fact I can't think of a public service that has ever been more cheaply supplied by a private service. I can, however, come up with several public services that are much more expensive due to the fact that they are privately owned, such as dental and eye-care.



Not in Canada. A few giant telecom companies dominate and they pretty much charge whatever they can get away with. Competition between these oligopolies seems to be minimal at best.


Highways maintenance has been privatized in BC for decades. Even when the dippers were in power they left that alone. Most cities garbage collection is contracted out. Many contract out sewer and water services. All are done far more efficiently by private contractors unless they inherited a city works crew with the contract.
I know of one that turned into a nightmare with the city eventually taking back the water services. Still a union nightmare for the city.Seems the two groups, even though they belong to the same union and were one prior to the contracted services cannot agree on how to amalgamate.One of the few towns that isn't government union too.
 
HarperCons
#36
private property is theft
 
personal touch
Bloc Québécois
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

With your information auditing background, you should start by auditing your posts so they make sense, or quit drinking before you post.

Don't read my posts,One should pay attention to who or what posts you want to read,asI stated before only take pleasure in what you want.
I am selective to who's responses I may pay attention to,postings,I take pride in saying there are minimal blogs,posts I pay attention to,after all I am limited in access to the audience I desire.
After your insult you will be placed on the none relevant post list,probably never reading anything you deliver
Please put me on ignore *** hole!
 
Machjo
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar SinisterView Post

Given the fact that private companies have to make a profit; it should be more than obvious that they cannot supply services more cheaply than government. In fact I can't think of a public service that has ever been more cheaply supplied by a private service. I can, however, come up with several public services that are much more expensive due to the fact that they are privately owned, such as dental and eye-care.



Not in Canada. A few giant telecom companies dominate and they pretty much charge whatever they can get away with. Competition between these oligopolies seems to be minimal at best.

The free market provides choice and consequently innovation. Government monopoly can stifle that. Furthermore, government can often create unnecessary discrimination or bureaucracy. Think of the separate school system. Think of the fact that if German or Ukrainian Canadians wanted to set up their own German or Ukrainian schools they can't but still have to fund the English and French schools. Think of the massive bureaucracy within the CBSA when instead we could just expand freedom of movement and consequently shrink the bureaucracy. Just look at Canada's functional literacy rate under the present system. One reason, especially in Canada's North, is that many students are being taught in a foreign language by teachers shipped in from the south. Give them vouchers and deregulate the system somewhat and let them establish their own schools according to the market.
 
tay
#39
Should the 'seal hunt' that the Inuit depend on go to the highest bidder instead?


wwwyoutubecomwatchvUbBv2ZGC2VI

 
Remington1
+1
#40
Lot's of privatization is still the dream of the very rich. "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws", NAFTA was probably a priority for them; I would not think democracy with a middle class is high on their list of positive either, expansion of NATO is probably a priority. In the words of Rockefeller, " Just say it's for the 'public good' or 'public interest' and you will gain monopoly". Well!! it appear now that the path to globalization and privatization might have been derailed.
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#41
Spoken like a true Dipper. Notley would be proud
 
tay
#42
Heather Whiteside discusses how the privatization schemes being toyed with at all levels of government represent nothing more than reckless gambling with public money and goods:
When a federal, provincial, or municipal government builds a bridge, a highway, a school, or a hospital, we know who owns it: we, the people. But when equity changes hands, which happens frequently with these kinds of deals, the companies originally hired by the government to partner in a P3 are no longer the owners. So the private equity partners that any given government thinks it’s bringing to the poker game might not stay until the last hand is dealt.

Equity holders are the private partner of a P3 project. Their role is consequential: they run the operations and maintenance of whatever got built — a hospital, school, highway, or bridge. They set highway tolls, they collect user fees, they hire and fire staff, they set targets and standards. And they earn the revenue. Private profit, not necessarily high quality, affordable, accessible public services, would be their main priority.

When private partners sell their equity stake to new project companies after the P3 contract is struck, community projects are turned into mere budget line items in a global asset portfolio. Transactions favour the top bidder, not necessarily the best quality partner. Public assets become equity trading cards, changing ownership hands multiple times.

Whether highways or hospitals, the bottom-line determines the rules of the game and private partners are [hoarding] the gains. For instance, private equity in Vancouver’s Diamond Centre P3 hospital has already changed hands twice since 2007; but the hands of the hospital’s public partner are tied — the new equity holders hire and fire the cleaning and maintenance contractors.
...
Instead of opening the flood gates, the public must have a say: Canada should be taking steps to control or bar equity sales, to avoid a future where public infrastructure is exposed to remote investor decision-making, profit leeching through user fees, offshore revenue loss for communities, distorted value for money, and a lack of accountability.



 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
#43
P3s or private ownership of utilities is the only way to keep costs under control and keep politicians from manipulating fees for political gain.

In the 1980s when the NDP was busy destroying BC's economy electrical rates and ferry fares were kept artificially low to buy votes.To do this infrastructure mainainence and replacements were ignored with the exception of the spectacular disaster of the fast ferrys. Which were not. So here we are 16 years later still playing catchup on our most expensive infrastructure.
Ain't socialism grand?
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#44
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

P3s or private ownership of utilities is the only way to keep costs under control and keep politicians from manipulating fees for political gain.

Nonsense. There are publicly owned and operated utilities that do well compared to private corporations. Some municipalities that privatized utilities are having second thoughts. The world is not as black and white as you seem to think it is.

You're so clueless.
 

Similar Threads

29
The privatization of Hydro One
by tay | Feb 19th, 2017
41
CUPW Blamed For Privatization
by Liberalman | Jan 30th, 2010
2
PROMISES, PROMISES, PROMISES BROKEN
by Martin Le Acadien | Sep 9th, 2005
no new posts