Promises of efficiency through privatization are illusory

[Bar Sinister]

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.

That's classic economics. Competition except where competition is impossible, regulation in that case. At the same time, constant review remains important. Competition in the early telephone industry was destructive, as various telephone companies refused to interconnect. So regulation created a monopoly and regulated it. Sixty years later, advancing technology made de-regulating the telephone industry desirable, so we did that..

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.

 

[personal touch]

The information auditing process of the relationship of the REA and TransAlta exposes certain methods and means I'd directed process,
Community based "boards" became part of the self regulation scheme,
Fondly known as the whiskey and water group,I recall my first PC convention,watching the laisons,understanding the manipulation became significant in understanding diminished capacity of regulation,horrible character people is all I am saying,you need people to mobilize agendas,weakened public policy is no accident
When I entered into the electrical industry,there was a lot of bugle blowing and it was in process of further "privatization "legislation,this came to a big stop when evidence of self regulation was not safe,
What a whiskey and water syndrome that was,
It could be traced way back to the start of the relationship of the REA and TransAlta ,
And of course the Conservative Party

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

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.

Yeah, well, Canadians. What're ya gonna do?

 

[coldstream]

All aspects of the NeoCon/Liberal economic agenda.. Free Trade, Monetarism (free markets in currency and credit), Deregulation (of markets), Privatization (of natural monopolies and utilities).. have ALL failed.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Here's an example of privatization. In Ireland, if you want a phone, you can call Eircom, the government phone company, and within three months they'll come out to hook you up. Or you can walk into a 3 store and walk out ten minutes later with a mobile that works and costs less than Eircom service.

 

[Machjo]

All aspects of the NeoCon/Liberal economic agenda.. Free Trade, Monetarism (free markets in currency and credit), Deregulation (of markets), Privatization (of natural monopolies and utilities).. have ALL failed.

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.

 

[personal touch]

What should and should not be regulated and subsidies is a question no one wants to ask

Public safety should be oversighted?agree?

Making profit at the cost of safety?where is the line?

Window dressing safety when it comes to private industries?is this good enough?
The problem with regulation it is weakened,no dominance,no teeth, no acess to fair process,a million regulations but no processs or access.ZIPO!
This is no accident,who manages the administered processs,are usually the designers of the process.
Privatation and self regulation made sure of this,now Canadians have to pay for this

 

[DaSleeper]

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

 

[Corduroy]

Here's an example of privatization. In Ireland, if you want a phone, you can call Eircom, the government phone company, and within three months they'll come out to hook you up. Or you can walk into a 3 store and walk out ten minutes later with a mobile that works and costs less than Eircom service.

Well out in Canada, the CRTC gave us the freedom to pick and choose our own TV channels. So where's your Obama phone now?

 

[personal touch]

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

Go to sleep

 

[coldstream]

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.

 

[petros]

Port Moody deserved it.

 

[Machjo]

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]

Banking should be used as the example and the question would be very clear in just a few words.

 

[taxslave]

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]

private property is theft

 

[personal touch]

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]

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]

Should the 'seal hunt' that the Inuit depend on go to the highest bidder instead?


www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbBv2ZGC2VI

 

[Remington1]

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.