|
I luckily did not live under Thatcher, but know that she could not have sold off the peoples
industries in the peoples interest. Ideologically she sold from ownership of all to the elite, not
back to the people.
Now transport, energy, water, telecoms industries are profiteering from the people. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Privatization is never done in the interests of the public. It is a financial giveaway done to hand
off businesses, profitable or not, to corporatist who want to use them to make money, and if that
means cutting back on services while charging higher prices, they do.
There are some services that must be owned or regulated by government for the common good, even if
they are not as profitable as they could be or are run at a financial loss. Privatization and
deregulation are only good when competition and cost of services is low enough that the public would
pay lower prices than as a government owned business.
The mess of Enron would not have been possible if the electric industry had not been deregulated.
And in California there are a few "for profit" fire departments (read: Profiteering fire
departments) that will only respond to paying clients - if your home were 2 blocks away, they
wouldn't come to help you because you're not a "paying client".
There are some services that must be socialized for the benefit of all. Anyone who disagrees
should live in a country like this:
- Police only help those who pay fees (i.e. The poor get no justice)
- Schools have fees the parents must pay (the poor get no education)
- No regulation of food production (raw foods could contain pesticides and processed foods contain
poisonous chemicals)
- No regulation of medicine (untested and unproven drugs are sold for exorbitant prices)
- Private for profit militias can be built (i.e. Blackwater) get government contracts, and have no
legal accountability to people they kill or injure
- Medical care is solely dependent on your own income, no health insurance, and doctors can charge
what they want
- No worker safety rules; you can be forced to work in unsafe conditions, fired without just cause,
docked wages for unjust reasons, etc.
That is what some people want, or will get if they actually got their wish.
Those who want the "law of the jungle" to rule are either the haves who want to take more without
accountability or the ignorant who don't know any better. Such people should live together, but for
the rest of us who want to live in a civilized society, that's not acceptable. |
| |
 K9  19 Sep 2008 15:19
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Bus's and etc. Were better off without being sold off to the companies. From the tales I've heard
they used to be cheap AND efficiently, not unlike today |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
The problem with Government run industry Like the N.H.S. Is that the are not accountable so they are
not run like a business at all. The next Government comes along and tries to clear up the mess but
the opposition just keep putting a spanner in the works. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The question is could they have been solved while the companies remained within the state sector?
Probably not. The truth is that the money flow was the other way around. There were no profits in
most cases. The state companies were always making losses and having to be bailed out by the
government. When dramatic action was needed to turn a company around, for example by closing a plant
or sacking a certain number of workers, it would never be taken. The government would prevent it so
it didn't have to deal with the political repercussions.
Why should the government be involved in making steel or flying aircraft any more than it should be
involved in operating fast food joints or making video games? |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
